EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4064
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23566 Posts
On June 16 2016 10:33 biology]major wrote: The irony is strong there. Your one law espouses personal responsibility more than anything. If there is a discrimination vs a certain group of people such that they receive longer sentences or are jailed more often, then it would mean that there should be even more pressure to be responsible for that group. They should be doing the right thing more often. Why is it the people shouting systemic racism never address this issue? Is it because you believe black people are not agents who control their own outcomes? It's always the system's fault. When I see the statistics, I see the opposite, it's always the person who commits the crime's fault. Yeah its unfair, but so what? don't commit the crime. There is still no sympathy from me. You're tellin me... As was pointed out what matters is implementation. So let's say the people in power when that law was written were all billionaires. So their interpretation of the "right thing" is "be born a billionaire or work until you die" anyone who doesn't do that is breaking the law. It's not the law of "Do the right thing" that's inherently classist, it's the implementation of the law. Replace "billionaires" with "white people", "classist" with "racist", and "Do the right thing" with the American legal system and maybe then you can see what you seem to be missing? That's putting aside for a moment that lots of people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit or are only caught because of unlawful/racist prejudices (like NYPD stopping more young black men then there are young black men living in NYC). | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 10:49 oneofthem wrote: it's because most of the internet libertarians are sheltered suburban kids Let me guess, you were raised in the streets and your only parent like figures were gang leaders. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 16 2016 10:49 oneofthem wrote: it's because most of the internet libertarians are sheltered suburban kids Nothing says shelter suburban kid like "why would they be in jail if they didn't do anything wrong?" But the government should stay away from the Internet, because that might impact the suburban child's life. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 16 2016 10:56 oneofthem wrote: nope. i was raised by wolves and educated by time travelers I was raised in a small town with only rotary phones, no cable or TV stations. We played with fireworks and potato guns for fun. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On June 16 2016 10:56 Plansix wrote: Nothing says shelter suburban kid like "why would they be in jail if they didn't do anything wrong?" But the government should stay away from the Internet, because that might impact the suburban child's life. "Impact the suburban child's life". Impact the entire world actually. Once the dam breaks on the internet, there's no going back. Once the government's in, it's there forever. In what way do you wish the government to be involved in the internet? What content do you personally wish for them to control? On June 16 2016 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:It's not the law of "Do the right thing" that's inherently classist, it's the implementation of the law. Replace "billionaires" with "white people", "classist" with "racist", and "Do the right thing" with the American legal system and maybe then you can see what you seem to be missing? "White racists need to do the right thing". Like what, elect an African American president? Evil whitey literally trusted their most prized possession (America) with a black man. Gasp! Those fucking racists. Again, to get people to care about this you need to show a person, law, or policy that is racist in intent. If the law effects people disproportionately, that does not mean the law is wrong. It has to be racist in intent. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:16 SK.Testie wrote: "Impact the suburban child's life". Impact the entire world actually. Once the dam breaks on the internet, there's no going back. Once the government's in, it's there forever. In what way do you wish the government to be involved in the internet? What content do you personally wish for them to control? I have to agree with testie on this. The government controlling the internet would be a nightmare. 1. inevitable control of content. 2. Possible policing of the internet? 3. Possible restrictions on amount of bandwith? 4. Easier access to our personal information. 5. The government can't properly run anything well, maybe it could affect the functionality of the internet? 6. Tons of crap probably can't think of. Dem politicians gonna take our internet | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23566 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:16 SK.Testie wrote: "White racists need to do the right thing". Like what, elect an African American president? Evil whitey literally trusted their most prized possession (America) with a black man. Gasp! Those fucking racists. Again, to get people to care about this you need to show a person, law, or policy that is racist in intent. If the law effects people disproportionately, that does not mean the law is wrong. It has to be racist in intent. lol no electing a black president doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about (it's an oldie but a goodie). Maybe that's what you need, but millions of other people have figured it out without having to prove something like the law having to have a racist intent for people to systemically enforce it in a racist way. + Show Spoiler + On June 16 2016 11:22 SolaR- wrote: I have to agree with testie on this. The government controlling the internet would be a nightmare. 1. inevitable control of content. 2. Possible policing of the internet? 3. Possible restrictions on amount of bandwith? 4. Easier access to our personal information. 5. The government can't properly run anything well, maybe it could affect the functionality of the internet? 6. Tons of crap probably can't think of. Dem politicians gonna take our internet *Whoosh* | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:27 Plansix wrote: The first key not getting baited is to not rise to see the bait for what it is. Broken justice system not a huge problem, but the government better not be involved with our internet. Leave that in the safe and capable hands of Comcast and silicon valley stock holders. I didn't comment on the "broken justice system". The bait ceases to exist for me. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:27 Plansix wrote: The first key not getting baited is to not rise to see the bait for what it is. Broken justice system not a huge problem, but the government better not be involved with our internet. Leave that in the safe and capable hands of Comcast and silicon valley stock holders. Comcast and silicon valley have a lot of power, but do not have authority nor the ability to directly make laws. They cannot back up this power under the threat of force like the government can. They already work with the government in some ways, but they are not directly responsible for making laws. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:27 GreenHorizons wrote: lol no electing a black president doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about (it's an oldie but a goodie). Maybe that's what you need, but millions of other people have figured it out without having to prove something like the law having to have a racist intent for people to systemically enforce it in a racist way. + Show Spoiler + On June 16 2016 11:22 SolaR- wrote: I have to agree with testie on this. The government controlling the internet would be a nightmare. 1. inevitable control of content. 2. Possible policing of the internet? 3. Possible restrictions on amount of bandwith? 4. Easier access to our personal information. 5. The government can't properly run anything well, maybe it could affect the functionality of the internet? 6. Tons of crap probably can't think of. Dem politicians gonna take our internet *Whoosh* Agreed. All of this has flown high over folks heads. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23566 Posts
Frankly I think it gets too much attention for being a basically non-existent problem. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote: As a soon to be non-internet user I see no problem with government restricting what people can say on the internet, where people can travel, how fast they can get there, collecting personal information, making it dysfunctional, or any of the unforeseen problems they may cause. out of sight, out of mind. Am I right? Has anyone read this book? Kind of related to what you guys are trying to imply. www.amazon.com | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote: As a soon to be non-internet user I see no problem with government restricting what people can say on the internet, where people can travel, how fast they can get there, collecting personal information, making it dysfunctional, or any of the unforeseen problems they may cause. But the government is bad a things and therefore will screw it up. Better to leave it to the FreeMarketTM to make sure it functions efficiently. Bad actors will be rooted out by the FreeMarketTM and abuse will be prevented through the natural means. We can't have the unnatural government influencing something so sacrosanct at the internet. But the police and justice system are fine, perfect systems created by the government. Nothing wrong there. Edit: The internet is fine. Laws can be updated to deal with the growing problem created such a large user base and an high level of effort needed to root out bad actors. I just find the comparison amusing. That the justice system must be fine and doesn't disproportionately punish minority groups. That system created by the government is fine. But heaven forbid the government touch the sacred internet, that might hurt someone. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15726 Posts
On June 16 2016 10:49 oneofthem wrote: it's because most of the internet libertarians are sheltered suburban kids This has been my experience as well. Libertarian perspectives make a lot of sense when most people around you are behaved and empowered. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:43 Plansix wrote: But the government is bad a things and therefore will screw it up. Better to leave it to the FreeMarketTM to make sure it functions efficiently. Bad actors will be rooted out by the FreeMarketTM and abuse will be prevented through the natural means. We can't have the unnatural government influencing something so sacrosanct at the internet. But the police and justice system are fine, perfect systems created by the government. Nothing wrong there. Edit: The internet is fine. Laws can be updated to deal with the growing problem created such a large user base and an high level of effort needed to root out bad actors. I just find the comparison amusing. That the justice system must be fine and doesn't disproportionately punish minority groups. That system created by the government is fine. But heaven forbid the government touch the sacred internet, that might hurt someone. Yeah i get your point already, that is why I linked that book. People only care and empathize with something only as long as it affects their daily life. If it is not a problem that is directly affecting them, they assume it is overblown or non-existent. Out of sight, out of mind. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23566 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:52 SolaR- wrote: Yeah i get your point already, that is why I linked that book. People only care and empathize with something only as long as it affects their daily life. If it is not a problem that is directly affecting them, they assume it is overblown or non-existent. Out of sight, out of mind. So why then is it so hard for people to take the next step and say, given that I know this about myself (speaking generically) I'm probably being an idiot when I say something like "racism doesn't exist" or "racism isn't a big problem"? | ||
| ||
