It is currently Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:58 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 14181
canpakes wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:
It's Golden Corral on crack.

Shouldn’t that be Orange Corral?

I see you've been to Golden Corral.

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:35 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:56 am
Posts: 1864
Water Dog wrote:
A coordinated ban of Infowars between independent companies. How, what's the word, collusive?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... alex-jones

LOL. I'm no fan of Alex Jones, the man is a nut. But what's that saying, "I don't agree with what that man's saying, but I'll die to protect his right to say it," or something to that effect?

Other, related news.

Candice Owens, a black woman, takes two of Sarah Jeong's racist tweets against white people and posts them on twitter changing out the word "white" for "jew" and is, in a completely unexpected turn of events, banned. Say something racist against white people, not only do you not get banned, you get hired by the New York Times.

ht to report on. Gee, when the Bundy's did something similar it was headlining news on every outlet.


I think private companies not only have the right to ban Alex Jones, I think you can argue they have the responsibility. The Sandy Hook conspiracies are beyond the pale. This is a hill the right should not die on. They shouldn’t even be standing on it
But at the same time I do understand their fear. Seeing people defend Sarah Jeong’s tweets the last few days I do not trust the left to be fair. You don’t have to call Jeong a racist, just conceding that generalizing about an entire demographic like that is really ____ behavior and unproductive would be enough. I don’t know how it become acceptable on the left to talk like that about white people like that. But I’ve heard it even IRL. Not saying I’m victimized or oppressed by it, but it’s trashy and unacceptable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7515
If only faux conservatives like Water Dog were concerned about the actual victims wrapped up in the InfoWars brouhaha ...

Quote:
When radio host Alex Jones published a video in 2017 titled “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed,” the parents of a little boy killed in the Sandy Hook shooting bought security alarms for their homes, fearful that they would once again be harassed by Jones’ legion of followers convinced the shooting never happened.

Now a lawyer for Jones wants to make the parents’ home addresses public.

Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa lost 6-year-old Noah in 2012 when a gunman stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 children and six adults. More than five years later, they still get harassed by conspiracy theorists claiming the shooting was all a hoax.

Their harassment has led to a defamation lawsuit against Jones, who has fueled the conspiracy fires for years by claiming interviews with the parents and media outlets were faked and that the shooting may have never happened. A Texas judge is currently reviewing whether Jones’ motion to dismiss the case has any merit. In the meantime, Jones’ lawyer is seeking to open the floodgates for dangerous parties to easily find the Sandy Hook parents.

In new court filings obtained by HuffPost, Pozner and De La Rosa, who live separately, describe the steps they took in the wake of Jones reigniting the hoax theory...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:58 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20120
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Sammy Jankins wrote:
Seeing people defend Sarah Jeong’s tweets the last few days I do not trust the left to be fair. You don’t have to call Jeong a racist, just conceding that generalizing about an entire demographic like that is really ____ behavior and unproductive would be enough. I don’t know how it become acceptable on the left to talk like that about white people like that. But I’ve heard it even IRL. Not saying I’m victimized or oppressed by it, but it’s trashy and unacceptable.


I hope all the white people laugh about her amazing sense of humor as they unsubscribe.

“Oh, how funny, darling! Just to frame this moment in eternity I think I’ll cancel my subscription. That young woman who jokes about being cruel to old white men is the living end!”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:38 pm
Posts: 5267
canpakes wrote:
If only faux conservatives like Water Dog were concerned about the actual victims wrapped up in the InfoWars brouhaha ...

Quote:
When radio host Alex Jones published a video in 2017 titled “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed,” the parents of a little boy killed in the Sandy Hook shooting bought security alarms for their homes, fearful that they would once again be harassed by Jones’ legion of followers convinced the shooting never happened.

Now a lawyer for Jones wants to make the parents’ home addresses public.

Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa lost 6-year-old Noah in 2012 when a gunman stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 children and six adults. More than five years later, they still get harassed by conspiracy theorists claiming the shooting was all a hoax.

Their harassment has led to a defamation lawsuit against Jones, who has fueled the conspiracy fires for years by claiming interviews with the parents and media outlets were faked and that the shooting may have never happened. A Texas judge is currently reviewing whether Jones’ motion to dismiss the case has any merit. In the meantime, Jones’ lawyer is seeking to open the floodgates for dangerous parties to easily find the Sandy Hook parents.

In new court filings obtained by Huffington Post, Pozner and De La Rosa, who live separately, describe the steps they took in the wake of Jones reigniting the hoax theory...


That' disgusting. I can understand defending even the most vile speech on principle, but there are a surprising number of right-wingers who love Alex Jones and everything he stands for. One of them is our President.

_________________
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:38 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9078
Location: Cave
water dog wrote:
At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?


The thread has really taken off as this was from page 1. But my main point would be, I'm not too worried about censoring Alex Jones -- especially when we're talking about independent for-profit businesses censoring him, and not unequal application of law. If the protagonist in 1984 were similar to Jones, and the censorship occurring was through private enterprise, and the speaking crime was speaking as outrageously as possible and lying as much as possible, I'm thinking not many copies would have been sold.

I mean, Jones and others like him are re-writing history in the most facile way possible. Jones would be just like the government media was in the book. The difference is, that Jones is lying to an audience that openly consents to being lied too, rather than employing actual deceptive practices that are tricking people.

So the real question is, what do we think about protecting the right to lie, and the right of people to join in on the lie pretty much knowing it's a lie (and who think it's funnier and cooler because it is a lie), and for the movement to grow larger and larger and increase in power to the point it's a force to be reckoned with? It's somewhat like a pyramid scheme or tulip mania.

To seriously consider this, Water Dog, I think we must recognize that freedom is argued for in two very different ways -- as a good in itself, and as an means to an end -- an optimization principle.

Freedom as a good in itself says we should allow people to be free for the sake of being free -- so if people wish to start a religion that reveals a cosmic spaceship is hiding behind a comet and openly preach mass suicide to get there, then we should protect their right to be free. Freedom as an optimization principle -- the incentives of freedom provide the invisible hand that creates markets -- isn't so committed. In the case of market failures, the motive for freedom erodes.

Wikipedia is a pretty good example I think of a market approach to documenting human knowledge that does really well on average in increasing the quality of information on the planet.

social media -- Facebook, youtube, and whatever, is an epic example of market failure in terms of getting the best information to the surface. But who are we to say its a failure anymore than Hale Bop was a failure? If people enjoy freely expressing themselves in any way they see fit, and if other people freely appreciate the expression on terms that have nothing to do with quality of information, then who are we to say they are wrong, if we value freedom in itself?

In the case of freedom for its own sake, the only argument to curtail it is when one person's freedom takes away another's. We protect it even if it produces a massive pile of crap. However, in another view of freedom, if freedom isn't optimizing, then there's a reason to take it away.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:38 pm
Posts: 5267
Gadianton wrote:
water dog wrote:
At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?


The thread has really taken off as this was from page 1. But my main point would be, I'm not too worried about censoring Alex Jones -- especially when we're talking about independent for-profit businesses censoring him, and not unequal application of law. If the protagonist in 1984 were similar to Jones, and the censorship occurring was through private enterprise, and the speaking crime was speaking as outrageously as possible and lying as much as possible, I'm thinking not many copies would have been sold.

I mean, Jones and others like him are re-writing history in the most facile way possible. Jones would be just like the government media was in the book. The difference is, that Jones is lying to an audience that openly consents to being lied too, rather than employing actual deceptive practices that are tricking people.

So the real question is, what do we think about protecting the right to lie, and the right of people to join in on the lie pretty much knowing it's a lie (and who think it's funnier and cooler because it is a lie), and for the movement to grow larger and larger and increase in power to the point it's a force to be reckoned with? It's somewhat like a pyramid scheme or tulip mania.

To seriously consider this, Water Dog, I think we must recognize that freedom is argued for in two very different ways -- as a good in itself, and as an means to an end -- an optimization principle.

Freedom as a good in itself says we should allow people to be free for the sake of being free -- so if people wish to start a religion that reveals a cosmic spaceship is hiding behind a comet and openly preach mass suicide to get there, then we should protect their right to be free. Freedom as an optimization principle -- the incentives of freedom provide the invisible hand that creates markets -- isn't so committed. In the case of market failures, the motive for freedom erodes.

Wikipedia is a pretty good example I think of a market approach to documenting human knowledge that does really well on average in increasing the quality of information on the planet.

social media -- Facebook, youtube, and whatever, is an epic example of market failure in terms of getting the best information to the surface. But who are we to say its a failure anymore than Hale Bop was a failure? If people enjoy freely expressing themselves in any way they see fit, and if other people freely appreciate the expression on terms that have nothing to do with quality of information, then who are we to say they are wrong, if we value freedom in itself?

In the case of freedom for its own sake, the only argument to curtail it is when one person's freedom takes away another's. We protect it even if it produces a massive pile of crap. However, in another view of freedom, if freedom isn't optimizing, then there's a reason to take it away.


This is an excellent post! Lots of points worth discussing, but I would like to highlight the last paragraph that I bolded. Alex Jones' free speech has eroded the freedoms of others. Veronique De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner have been threatened and harassed for five years, forcing them to move seven times. Other Sandy Hook parents have experienced the same thing. Is it optimizing to protect one man's right to make other people's lives a living hell?

_________________
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1796
Gadianton wrote:
water dog wrote:
At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?


The thread has really taken off as this was from page 1. But my main point would be, I'm not too worried about censoring Alex Jones -- especially when we're talking about independent for-profit businesses censoring him, and not unequal application of law. If the protagonist in 1984 were similar to Jones, and the censorship occurring was through private enterprise, and the speaking crime was speaking as outrageously as possible and lying as much as possible, I'm thinking not many copies would have been sold.

I mean, Jones and others like him are re-writing history in the most facile way possible. Jones would be just like the government media was in the book. The difference is, that Jones is lying to an audience that openly consents to being lied too, rather than employing actual deceptive practices that are tricking people.

So the real question is, what do we think about protecting the right to lie, and the right of people to join in on the lie pretty much knowing it's a lie (and who think it's funnier and cooler because it is a lie), and for the movement to grow larger and larger and increase in power to the point it's a force to be reckoned with? It's somewhat like a pyramid scheme or tulip mania.

To seriously consider this, Water Dog, I think we must recognize that freedom is argued for in two very different ways -- as a good in itself, and as an means to an end -- an optimization principle.

Freedom as a good in itself says we should allow people to be free for the sake of being free -- so if people wish to start a religion that reveals a cosmic spaceship is hiding behind a comet and openly preach mass suicide to get there, then we should protect their right to be free. Freedom as an optimization principle -- the incentives of freedom provide the invisible hand that creates markets -- isn't so committed. In the case of market failures, the motive for freedom erodes.

Wikipedia is a pretty good example I think of a market approach to documenting human knowledge that does really well on average in increasing the quality of information on the planet.

social media -- Facebook, youtube, and whatever, is an epic example of market failure in terms of getting the best information to the surface. But who are we to say its a failure anymore than Hale Bop was a failure? If people enjoy freely expressing themselves in any way they see fit, and if other people freely appreciate the expression on terms that have nothing to do with quality of information, then who are we to say they are wrong, if we value freedom in itself?

In the case of freedom for its own sake, the only argument to curtail it is when one person's freedom takes away another's. We protect it even if it produces a massive pile of crap. However, in another view of freedom, if freedom isn't optimizing, then there's a reason to take it away.


In other words, the greater good? A bit of a subject change. Others here are lying and pretending the censorship isn't happening. You not only concede it's happening, but argue it's necessary to maximize freedom. A much better argument. Honest arguments, at the very least, can be engaged. I'm not really all that familiar with Alex Jones, what I know of him, certainly won't be crying any tears over his banishment. (I'm not sure he is actually banished, however. That itself is a separate subject, but censoring people like Jones often gives them even more power.) My opinion though is that he's just a pawn in a bigger game. Liberals loved Alex Jones before they hated him. This stuff with Sandy Hook is also old. The timing suggests this isn't about Jones, it's about setting the stage for broader censorship and influencing midterms, not of obvious nut jobs like Jones, but of conservative voices broadly.

The appropriate way to deal with someone like Jones is how he was already being dealt with prior to this. Sue him. Part of the move here may also be to put some distance between InfoWars and the rest of the media. This lawsuit with Jones likely will go to Supreme Court and have far-reaching implications no matter which side the court ends up on. Trump has been calling for the media to be held accountable. Here is a private citizen trying to do just that. The Jones' case is likely to be the one that answers this question, can a media outlet be sued and held liable for misreporting? If so, ROFL.

This is also separate from the matter of whether Facebook or any other social media constitute a public forum monopoly that warrants regulation. A completely fair point to consider. Folks around here reject the idea that Facebook is a monopoly (because they want it to have the freedom to censor conservatives), but can't seem to articulate any argument beyond name calling. And then immediately contradict themselves with talk of Russian meddling. Which is it? Does Facebook have notable impact on our political discourse and influence election outcomes or not? Goodness, supreme courts have ruled that even a shopping mall constitutes a public forum. A shopping mall! And that even though it is privately owned, it is a public space where the private owner cannot limit the free speech of people occupying the space. If that kind of argument can be made for a shopping mall, it can be made times a billion for Facebook. Literally.

It is the largest public forum on the planet. There are 214 million Facebook users just in the USA. And those are predominantly voting-aged people. Virtually every able-bodied voter in the United States is on Facebook. It is the biggest public forum monopoly in the history of the world. If Mark Zuckerberg can unilaterally discriminate and regulate people's speech on Facebook, this gives him the power to abrogate speech that takes place in society broadly. I frankly would love to leave Facebook, but I can't. Leaving Facebook is the modern equivalent of moving out into the hills and living as a hermit. It's no different than a telephone. Or access to the internet. If Facebook were to ban me, because they don't like something I said, they would literally be cutting me off from my family. Just like denying me a car or a phone, I would literally lose my ability to participate in modern society. Which is really kind of amazing given how quickly this new society has formed. In just a decade.

EXTENDING PRUNEYARD: CITIZENS' RIGHT TO DEMAND PUBLIC ACCESS CABLE CHANNELS, NYU Law Review wrote:
An appreciation of the importance of diverse viewpoints and of the commingling of those viewpoints in a democratic society animates the protection of public speech achieved by the public forum doctrine.8 This Note proposes that cable access advocates should ground a similar claim to access under the public forum doctrine as it has been interpreted in state courts. Cable television, and soon the new technologies of communication labeled the "information superhighway," will far outstrip the shopping mall in altering the terms and domain of public discourse.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 8198
Location: What does the fox say?
Public Access channels..... Who funded those?

Bad analogy is bad.

Your apology Water Dog is more like demanding CNN carry Wayne's World during primetime on CNN instead of the cable companies making channels available for individual or publicly funded content on a Public Access channel.

Jones has a variety of media venues that he can publish through. He does not have a right to some private forum.

If his ISP or hosting company was refusing to carry his content your analogy might be more apt.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:19 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1796
SteelHead wrote:
Public Access channels..... Who funded those?

Read the dern paper. The argument is that private cable networks have to allow public access channels. They must be provided bandwidth on the TV network. Facebook = TV Network = Phone Network. Jones being allowed to have a Facebook page, like everyone else, is being allowed to access the network and have bandwidth on it.

Liberals have argued for years that even a single radio station is a "subnetwork" where equal bandwidth must be provided. This is the Fairness Doctrine, which at one point was law. I do not find this argument persuasive in the least. People can change the radio channel. They can click "unfollow" or "unfriend." A single channel within a vast network is not a monopoly. It is the network as a whole that is a monopoly.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 12049
Location: Multiverse
Yep. Fewer Alex Jones hits is exactly like Orwell's novel. :lol: :lol: :lol:

There ain't no snowflake like a triggered white "patriot" Christian snowflake. With a gun. You just know there's screaming and shooting coming. Because Big Brother. :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
When a master has a Negro and uses him well, he is much better off than if he was free.-Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2429
Water Dog wrote:
Image


Dude, you really want to be right here and I don't have any illusion that anyone will change your mind even though reality, the law and common sense are all against you at this point. You are wrong and no amount of false equivalency is going to change that. What I find humorous at this point is watching someone who claims to be conservative (I get that trumpets are RHINO's, at best) argue that the govt should step in and regulate a private business instead of letting the free market manage the content that Facebook chooses, as a private business, to allow. Alas, self professed conservatives only seem to care about deregulation and a free and open marketplace when it doesn't negatively affect the side that they blindly choose to follow. For instance:

https://www.bustle.com/p/this-anti-trump-tax-plan-commercial-wont-be-aired-by-fox-news-but-you-can-still-watch-it-6739407 - fox news has a monopoly on conservative viewership and is the #1 primetime news network, so why aren't you bitching about them not allowing this (and other left leaning commercials) to be aired? Could it be that you are a hypocrite? Fox news is a channel that actually claims to be news, not just a social media company, that refuses to allow the other side any voice but you don't seem to care because, and Im guessing here, your arbitrary use of the word "monopoly" doesn't cover this situation.

I still thinks its hilarious that you continue to act like Facebook fits the criteria of a monopoly (and that alex jones is a conservative - lol). The fact that they are dwarfed by google in ad revenues, people have and use dozens of other choices for social media, people have and use dozens of other options for connecting with their friends, Facebook is a SOCIAL media company which is free to use and, much like television, I can switch to another social media channel any time I choose. Nothing Facebook has done has limited competition, ability to do business and nothing they have done limits anyone's constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Again, just because you have chosen to believe something, doesn't make it true.

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7515
Quote:
I frankly would love to leave Facebook, but I can't. Leaving Facebook is the modern equivalent of moving out into the hills and living as a hermit.

Lol. What a crock of ____. The last time I posted anything on Facebook was about three years ago, and the sum total of all of my activity there probably fills a single page. Yet I seem to have a fully functional work and social life and manage to interact with friends and family entirely without it. I know a lot of folks who do the same. There is something very wrong with your thinking and social strategy if you actually believe that your life will be relegated to hermit status without it.

And your dysfunctional dependence on Facebook still doesn’t compel it to make Infowars crap available to your feed. Learn to use a browser to get your daily fill of BS instead of expecting some other source to drop it off in your lap free of effort. It’s the least you can do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 14181
canpakes wrote:
Lol. What a crock of ____. The last time I posted anything on Facebook was about three years ago, and the sum total of all of my activity there probably fills a single page. Yet I seem to have a fully functional work and social life and manage to interact with friends and family entirely without it. I know a lot of folks who do the same. There is something very wrong with your thinking and social strategy if you actually believe that your life will be relegated to hermit status without it.

And your dysfunctional dependence on Facebook still doesn’t compel it to make Infowars crap available to your feed. Learn to use a browser to get your daily fill of BS instead of expecting some other source to drop it off in your lap free of effort. It’s the least you can do.

It's so strange to me that there are people who think their social life would end without Facebook. What the hell did people do in the 90's?

I use Facebook to say happy birthday to relatives that I don't want to call. That's the extent of my Facebook use. I wonder if my password is going to still work every time I log in, given how long it's been since the last time. My life would barely change if Facebook was wiped from the Earth, and any changes would be an improvement (I'm tired of people telling me to go like things).

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7515
Some Schmo wrote:
It's so strange to me that there are people who think their social life would end without Facebook. What the hell did people do in the 90's?

I use Facebook to say happy birthday to relatives that I don't want to call. That's the extent of my Facebook use. I wonder if my password is going to still work every time I log in, given how long it's been since the last time. My life would barely change if Facebook was wiped from the Earth, and any changes would be an improvement (I'm tired of people telling me to go like things).

Apparently, faux ‘conservatives’ can’t live without it because they can’t spread their conspiratorial ____ nearly as efficiently by phone.

Seriously, Facebook is one of the problems of modern-day tech, helping to degrade modern society into increased d__a__ tribalism and ignorance. It didn’t have to be that way, but too many people let their baser instincts and selfishness rule their actions on that platform. We even get an example of the outcome from repeated exposure here in this thread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2429
canpakes wrote:
And your dysfunctional dependence on Facebook still doesn’t compel it to make Infowars crap available to your feed. Learn to use a browser to get your daily fill of BS instead of expecting some other source to drop it off in your lap free of effort. It’s the least you can do.


Lets see, Water Dog has shown he is: Entitled, wants govt to step in to regulate private businesses, doesn't have a basic understanding of economics or laissez faire capitalism, doesn't understand constitutionally protected "free speech", wants to be spoon fed whatever he feels he is entitled to, looks to a populist wannabe tyrant for leadership, etc. Sheesh, Trumpism doesn't reflect traditional conservatism in any way.

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:17 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7623
Ben Shapiro's thoughts on the matter;

Thought I would add another view/opinion to the board's mix.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Tech Giants’ Alex Jones Ban Got Wrong
By BEN SHAPIRO

Rather than articulate a clear standard by which the conspiracy theorist could be banned, Facebook and its competitors cited vague prohibitions on ‘hate.’
Alex Jones is a full-fledged kook.

This is a man who called Special Counsel Robert Mueller a “monster” controlling an unnamed pedophilic gang, and then added, “Politically, you’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying, bi**h. Get ready. We’re going to bang heads.” This is a man who suggested that the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre never occurred, and then claimed that victims were “child actors.” This is a fellow who says that vaccines give your children autism, who says that a Syrian chemical-weapons attack was a “false flag,” that Stoneman Douglas survivor David Hogg was a “crisis actor,” that the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria was actually a pedophilic headquarters, and that the Chobani yogurt company had contributed to a rise in tuberculosis.


This week, he was banned from Facebook, Apple, and YouTube . . . for none of the above reasons.

Apple announced that it “does not tolerate hate speech,” and thus Jones had to go. Facebook announced that it had removed Jones’s pages for “glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.” YouTube also cited “hate speech and harassment” as the rationale for knocking down Jones’s videos.

Now, I dislike Jones more than the average human. I’ve been a longtime critic, a status that resulted in Jones personally threatening my company a few months back, calling me a “parasite” and an “atheist” while screaming, “Get behind me, Satan!” I think Jones is a disgrace, and that supposed conservatives who have embraced him and Infowars have done a serious disservice to the conservative cause.

But I’m far more concerned with social-media arbiters suddenly deciding that vague “hate speech” standards ought to govern our common spaces than I am with the daily dose of detritus distributed by this delirious dunce. Social-media giants had a choice here. If they wanted Jones gone, they could simply have defined a standard limit on the number of debunked conspiracy theories one could peddle on the site before being banned, or they could have created a standard prohibiting public threats.

Instead, they chose the most politically correct way of booting Jones: They claimed he’d violated undefined standards regarding “hate.” That’s why so many on the right are rushing to Jones’s defense — not because they like Jones or anything he stands for, but because the Left is happy to apply double standards under the rubric of “anti-hate measures.”

To see how, we only need to examine the last week of news. Sarah Jeong, the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, has tweeted dozens of times, in racist fashion, about white people. The Left defended Jeong, not on the grounds that the New York Times ought to ignore social-media mobbing, but on the grounds that people of color can’t be racist. Were Jeong white, the Left dutifully explained, she would justifiably be fired; but since she is an Asian-American graduate of Berkeley and Harvard Law School, she’s a victim of the white patriarchy, and thus fully entitled to use racist slurs to target those with less melanin in their skin. “Hate speech,” it seems, only runs one way.

And it only applies to particular viewpoints, too. Suggest that Caitlyn Jenner is a man, and you might be violating crucial social-media “hate speech” taboos; suggest that the Jews are bloodsucking demons, as Louis Farrakhan does, and the leaders of the Women’s March will still hobnob with you.

Is it any wonder, then, that conservatives don’t trust social-media hall monitors to apply their alleged rules with equal vigilance? It’s demonstrative of the echo chamber that is Silicon Valley that rather than going after Jones on some semblance of an objective standard, they went directly for the buzzwords that will be most popular among those who love Sarah Jeong.

Unfortunately, the informal implementation of left-wing “hate speech” standards will likely be only a precursor to far more devastating culture wars to come. That’s because the Left does not operate in good faith. People of rational mind agree that Jones is a never-ending font of silly garbage. But the Left won’t leave it at Jones, which is why the social-media giants didn’t craft an objective standard to apply.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:41 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20120
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
It is both baffling and unfortunate that these companies act as though they are applying a standard they have been consistent in upholding when we know that isn't true. And, it isn't true. People were happy to make money off of Alex Jones until he became too much of a liability. OK, he definitely went too far in threatening civil war and implying he would attack Mueller. So, maybe that threat of political and personal violence should be the reason?

I am sick of imprecise or specious applications of the word hate as a sort of coverall to take care of sticky problems. Yes, if you invoke terrorism or hate, then you can escape scrutiny. It is like asking the question "What about the children?" Or, "Don't you support our troops?" There are no good answers to this that don't involve paying lip service to the alleged value being invoked. I hear you, Ceeboo. It is troubling. I am not a fan of Jeong. Of course, I am a white male, so my views on the matter are both invalid at the outset and my willingness to say anything reveals that I am wrongheaded.

All very, very frustrating. You see, we didn't used to listen to women, so now we don't have to listen to people like me. And that is fair, right? And there will be no blowback, surely. One of the legitimately frustrating things about the Left is that everything is about power in Leftist discourse. White men have power, and so they are responsible for everything that is wrong. Others do not have power, so they should be given power in order to fix everything.

Obviously this is an obscene oversimplification on my part, but the way things play out it often seems like the calculus is just that simple. I don't buy the defenses of Jeong's behavior, but then my opinions no longer matter. I believe that there are things other than power that matter. And I believe that the real problems we have boil down to human weaknesses and foibles, not the gender and race of the person making the mistakes.

Call me crazy.

I suppose we can learn that by watching non-white, non-male people make the mistakes now. Unless it turns out that it really was the fact that the people with power were white and male that was ruining everything, just as Jeong once claimed. (But she was joking, I'm sure.) Then we can settle in to the new utopia.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:46 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 4483
Location: Las Vegas, NV
This whole thread is a hoax, and all of you are crisis actors.

_________________
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:21 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 14181
Doctor Steuss wrote:
This whole thread is a hoax, and all of you are crisis actors.

I prefer to refer to myself as a scenario performer, but yeah, ya got me.

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:30 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:38 pm
Posts: 5267
Jones banned himself in a false flag operation. I found evidence of thermite that proves it.

_________________
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gunnar and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group