|
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. |
On November 03 2017 14:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 12:30 Doodsmack wrote:On November 03 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 11:35 Doodsmack wrote:On November 03 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 05:34 Doodsmack wrote:On November 03 2017 04:07 Danglars wrote:
I'm hoping for the next generation to call BS on current dialogue and build a new one up. The second tweet just makes an excuse for the indifference out of thin air. Whether the media frames the issue correctly doesn’t affect whether actual racism should be met with indifference. Those who meet it with indifference are making their own choice. The media framing of the issue plays into public perception that it's overblown and mostly made it. The linked story is exactly case in point. First step is to recover credibility, second is to use it to convince the public of real problems. First step for you might be reading the article and responding substantively if it's bullshit framing or not. A related problem is the left's indifference to their left wing and radical fringe of the left wing misrepresenting arguments for profit. Nowhere in this post did you address whether indifference to actual racism, the explicit subject of the second tweet, is justified. Nowhere in your response do you admit public perception is influenced by bullshit framing. Respond substantively and say your piece. Yes, the public is forced by the media to respond to actual racism with indifference. Is that because the public is too stupid to discern actual racism or something? You're getting closer than your first take. Now, when you see news stories alleging that black athletes are hurting pizza sales by demanding civil rights, and you read exactly what they're basing this off of, does that help or hurt American apprehension of real racism? I guess those priviliged athletes can kneel if they want.On the flipside people can also turn the tv off.Ratings down 18% in 2 years, not surprised papa johns pulled their ad campaign with those sort of numbers. Also the racism now is coming from the left.Anyone hear about the concert in Canada recently where the musician on stage called on white people to go to the back and women of colour to come to the front.Basically if you are in an interracial relationship she split you up.The modern left is racist and is now fighting internally due to identity politics.It is destroying itself before our eyes. This shit is so insultingly disingenuous that it amazes me that you, Danglars, and others in this thread can operate with a worldview like this. You desperately cling to the tiniest examples of people on the left doing something wrong and call it the apocalypse ("the left is collapsing", "the left is racist"), while simultaneously trivializing anything and everything the right does wrong, including regular blatant displays of both overt and institutionalized racism and sexism. I never see you, Danglars, xDaunt, etc. unequivocally condemning the incredibly strong resurgence of white nationalism and blatant racism that is running through the right, yet any tiny display of something that could possibly be displayed as racist, sexist, or otherwise just stupid from the left sends you guys into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy of "AH HAH! SEE! THE LEFT IS TUUUUUURRRRIBBBBLLLEEE!" It's simply pathetic and it destroys any kind of credibility that you have in an intellectual discussion.
Alot of the far right media and talk radio have been pushing this kind of world view for decades now. And they comb the country to find every bad thing occurring somewhere they cna and then bombard with endless stories about those. So it creates a massively distorted worldview. and people chose to consume that media.
|
On November 03 2017 21:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him???
|
On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him???
Even if he is 100% right about her exploiting the suffering of indigenous peoples, he's still being more offensive by using his gross ignorance of indigenous peoples and general American history to try to insult her.
By definition he and his supporters are bigoted toward indigenous peoples.
|
On November 03 2017 22:20 brian wrote:
i’ve read countless posts and articles about trumps call for the terrorist in NY to get the death penalty. but NY doesn’t use the death penalty. none of them address this. am i missing something key here? can he be charged federally and then somehow be subject to being sentenced to death? it has never occurred to me whether there’s a federal statute regarding the death penalty. i was under the impression it was a state thing.
IF he committed a federal crime then he could be charged in federal court. Federal law does still have the death penalty.
For some crimes both a state and the feds have jurisdiction (concurrent jurisdiction), so the feds could take hte case if they want. I'm not sure whether any of the federal statutes would be applicable in this case; they generally shouldn't be, but sometimes terrorism-related stuff provides a basis for federal jurisdiction.
On November 03 2017 21:38 brian wrote:
the fuck he doing calling someone Pocahontas..Christ, what an undignified presidency.
he's been doing that to warren for years now. I don't remember the full details; iirc warren at some point claimed to have some small fraction of native american heritage, which may have been proven incorrect or had some other issue with it. at any rate he calls her pocahontas in reference to that.
|
On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him???
I know. You'd think he would know to write "led" instead of "lead" here. I guess he doesn't believe there are good people on the grammar Nazi side.
On November 03 2017 22:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 22:20 brian wrote:
i’ve read countless posts and articles about trumps call for the terrorist in NY to get the death penalty. but NY doesn’t use the death penalty. none of them address this. am i missing something key here? can he be charged federally and then somehow be subject to being sentenced to death? it has never occurred to me whether there’s a federal statute regarding the death penalty. i was under the impression it was a state thing. IF he committed a federal crime then he could be charged in federal court. Federal law does still have the death penalty. For some crimes both a state and the feds have jurisdiction (concurrent jurisdiction), so the feds could take hte case if they want. I'm not sure whether any of the federal statutes would be applicable in this case; they generally shouldn't be, but sometimes terrorism-related stuff provides a basis for federal jurisdiction. Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 21:38 brian wrote:
the fuck he doing calling someone Pocahontas..Christ, what an undignified presidency. he's been doing that to warren for years now. I don't remember the full details; iirc warren at some point claimed to have some small fraction of native american heritage, which may have been proven incorrect or had some other issue with it. at any rate he calls her pocahontas in reference to that.
According to this it came up mostly when Scott Brown accused her of using her heritage when applying for jobs. There wasn't really evidence that she had made it up, but her family also didn't have registered tribal affiliation.
It's an especially odd insult/accusation from someone who has a history of remembering events and things that never happened with no evidence, but that's how Trump operates.
|
On November 03 2017 22:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? Even if he is 100% right about her exploiting the suffering of indigenous peoples, he's still being more offensive by using his gross ignorance of indigenous peoples and general American history to try to insult her. By definition he and his supporters are bigoted toward indigenous peoples.
Pretty sure you can support a bigot without being a bigot yourself. Just because someone supports Trump doesn't mean they agree with all his beliefs or everything he does.
|
On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him???
You’re right, I shouldn’t support Trump. He should have called her “Fauxcahontas.”
|
On November 03 2017 22:56 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 22:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? Even if he is 100% right about her exploiting the suffering of indigenous peoples, he's still being more offensive by using his gross ignorance of indigenous peoples and general American history to try to insult her. By definition he and his supporters are bigoted toward indigenous peoples. Pretty sure you can support a bigot without being a bigot yourself. Just because someone supports Trump doesn't mean they agree with all his beliefs or everything he does.
They are just indifferent to his bigoted beliefs and policies so long as they get what they want.
|
It's like they don't understand that this is sort of admitting to profiting from abusive behavior.
|
On November 03 2017 11:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 10:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 03 2017 10:39 Danglars wrote:
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it. ? Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all. By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
I'm pretty sure I'm one of the people you're talking about, in which case you definitely misunderstood what I was saying the other day.
Do you understand why Hillary saying "I didn't know about the dossier until Buzzfeed published it" and "You're damn right I paid for it" aren't mutually exclusive? If not, I probably won't have time today to walk you through it but someone else on the forum might be kind enough to. Importantly, I wasn't even saying "she definitely didn't know about it," I was saying "it is not yet proven whether she did or didn't know about it." If your only evidence she did is that Daily Show interview, that remains unproven.
|
On November 03 2017 22:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? I know. You'd think he would know to write "led" instead of "lead" here. I guess he doesn't believe there are good people on the grammar Nazi side. Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 22:35 zlefin wrote:On November 03 2017 22:20 brian wrote:
i’ve read countless posts and articles about trumps call for the terrorist in NY to get the death penalty. but NY doesn’t use the death penalty. none of them address this. am i missing something key here? can he be charged federally and then somehow be subject to being sentenced to death? it has never occurred to me whether there’s a federal statute regarding the death penalty. i was under the impression it was a state thing. IF he committed a federal crime then he could be charged in federal court. Federal law does still have the death penalty. For some crimes both a state and the feds have jurisdiction (concurrent jurisdiction), so the feds could take hte case if they want. I'm not sure whether any of the federal statutes would be applicable in this case; they generally shouldn't be, but sometimes terrorism-related stuff provides a basis for federal jurisdiction. On November 03 2017 21:38 brian wrote:
the fuck he doing calling someone Pocahontas..Christ, what an undignified presidency. he's been doing that to warren for years now. I don't remember the full details; iirc warren at some point claimed to have some small fraction of native american heritage, which may have been proven incorrect or had some other issue with it. at any rate he calls her pocahontas in reference to that. According to this it came up mostly when Scott Brown accused her of using her heritage when applying for jobs. There wasn't really evidence that she had made it up, but her family also didn't have registered tribal affiliation. It's an especially odd insult/accusation from someone who has a history of remembering events and things that never happened with no evidence, but that's how Trump operates.
There was also no evidence she actually used it to get jobs. It was listed in some professor directory a long time ago then Harvard used her to claim they had a diverse staff.
Forget Trump remembering events that didn't happen; he invented and pretended to be an entirely different person. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html?utm_term=.fa10a3541e88
|
Well. Pre-release, the tax plan's polling support looks only marginally better than the healthcare plan. It'll be interesting to see if Republicans are able to communicate anything to change perceptions now that the full bill is out-beyond lying like the White House has already started doing, of course.
|
On November 03 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 12:30 Doodsmack wrote:On November 03 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 11:35 Doodsmack wrote:On November 03 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 05:34 Doodsmack wrote:The second tweet just makes an excuse for the indifference out of thin air. Whether the media frames the issue correctly doesn’t affect whether actual racism should be met with indifference. Those who meet it with indifference are making their own choice. The media framing of the issue plays into public perception that it's overblown and mostly made it. The linked story is exactly case in point. First step is to recover credibility, second is to use it to convince the public of real problems. First step for you might be reading the article and responding substantively if it's bullshit framing or not. A related problem is the left's indifference to their left wing and radical fringe of the left wing misrepresenting arguments for profit. Nowhere in this post did you address whether indifference to actual racism, the explicit subject of the second tweet, is justified. Nowhere in your response do you admit public perception is influenced by bullshit framing. Respond substantively and say your piece. Yes, the public is forced by the media to respond to actual racism with indifference. Is that because the public is too stupid to discern actual racism or something? You're getting closer than your first take. Now, when you see news stories alleging that black athletes are hurting pizza sales by demanding civil rights, and you read exactly what they're basing this off of, does that help or hurt American apprehension of real racism?
It sure doesn’t mean anyone should respond to real racism with indifference, which is the simple point I’ve been making which arose directly from your tweets, and didn’t require any leap of logic for you to respond to other than your usual dodge of “lol read context.”
|
On November 03 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:
It's like they don't understand that this is sort of admitting to profiting from abusive behavior.
I called Danglars out on getting bad news from Twitter feeds, I'll call you out to...
He's saying that to his investors. He's not saying they can't fix things because it will cost them. He's saying that their profit numbers will go down because they are investing in better security and checks.
|
On November 04 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:
It's like they don't understand that this is sort of admitting to profiting from abusive behavior. I called Danglars out on getting bad news from Twitter feeds, I'll call you out to... He's saying that to his investors. He's not saying they can't fix things because it will cost them. He's saying that their profit numbers will go down because they are investing in better security and checks.
If they were not spending money combating abuses of their system and doing so would cut into profits, it means they were profiting from the abuse on their platform. And would still be doing it if they were not looking down the double barrel of government regulation. They would be happy to leave things as they are if they could.
|
In my eyes, the nickname Pocahontas isn't racist because Warren straight up isn't native american. She faked it, made it up. Trump, like a lot of people, probably assumed the Disney movie was made up, too. TBH, the nickname is good in my eyes. The idea of "she's not native american, because much like the disney character, it is made up" is pretty good except for the fact that pocahontas is based on a real person lol.
|
On November 04 2017 00:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 03 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:
It's like they don't understand that this is sort of admitting to profiting from abusive behavior. I called Danglars out on getting bad news from Twitter feeds, I'll call you out to... He's saying that to his investors. He's not saying they can't fix things because it will cost them. He's saying that their profit numbers will go down because they are investing in better security and checks. If they were not spending money combating abuses of their system and doing so would cut into profits, it means they were profiting from the abuse on their platform. And would still be doing it if they were not looking down the double barrel of government regulation. They would be happy to leave things as they are if they could.
As a public company they have to inform investors of news that may affect profitability and thus the valuation of the stock. Admitting that investing more money to combat abuse hurts profitability does not necessarily mean they are terribly disappointed about the fact. They may not have acted before because only now realized it was a serious problem.
They're sitting on $30Bn in cash and short term investments, I doubt Sergey and Larry are losing sleep over the few million they'll have to invest on a team to screen politically abusive ads (or on the AI to do it automatically).
|
On November 04 2017 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:
In my eyes, the nickname Pocahontas isn't racist because Warren straight up isn't native american. She faked it, made it up. Trump, like a lot of people, probably assumed the Disney movie was made up, too. TBH, the nickname is good in my eyes. The idea of "she's not native american, because much like the disney character, it is made up" is pretty good except for the fact that pocahontas is based on a real person lol.
Part of the reason I didn't use racist, because it's more about the disregard of indigenous people's opinions on the matter by pretty much everyone involved.
|
On November 04 2017 00:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 03 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:
It's like they don't understand that this is sort of admitting to profiting from abusive behavior. I called Danglars out on getting bad news from Twitter feeds, I'll call you out to... He's saying that to his investors. He's not saying they can't fix things because it will cost them. He's saying that their profit numbers will go down because they are investing in better security and checks. If they were not spending money combating abuses of their system and doing so would cut into profits, it means they were profiting from the abuse on their platform. And would still be doing it if they were not looking down the double barrel of government regulation. They would be happy to leave things as they are if they could.
No tears from me. I work in healthcare where we actually have a whole shit load of regulations about patient data. Hell, many of our clients require even more stringent stuff. Compliance costs us millions of dollars per year. If we decided to play it fast and loose, we could be immensely profitable... until we got slapped with a few thousand bucks per HIPAA violation x a bajillion.
|
On November 04 2017 00:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 03 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:
It's like they don't understand that this is sort of admitting to profiting from abusive behavior. I called Danglars out on getting bad news from Twitter feeds, I'll call you out to... He's saying that to his investors. He's not saying they can't fix things because it will cost them. He's saying that their profit numbers will go down because they are investing in better security and checks. If they were not spending money combating abuses of their system and doing so would cut into profits, it means they were profiting from the abuse on their platform. And would still be doing it if they were not looking down the double barrel of government regulation. They would be happy to leave things as they are if they could.
Again, not what was actually said. Now, they more than likely did see a good chunk of revenue from lax checks on advertising (although considering Russia only paid $100k, maybe not).
But the actual message to investors was that for the next while they'd be focusing resources on security and platform abuses.
On November 04 2017 00:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 00:15 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 03 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:
It's like they don't understand that this is sort of admitting to profiting from abusive behavior. I called Danglars out on getting bad news from Twitter feeds, I'll call you out to... He's saying that to his investors. He's not saying they can't fix things because it will cost them. He's saying that their profit numbers will go down because they are investing in better security and checks. If they were not spending money combating abuses of their system and doing so would cut into profits, it means they were profiting from the abuse on their platform. And would still be doing it if they were not looking down the double barrel of government regulation. They would be happy to leave things as they are if they could. No tears from me. I work in healthcare where we actually have a whole shit load of regulations about patient data. Hell, many of our clients require even more stringent stuff. Compliance costs us millions of dollars per year. If we decided to play it fast and loose, we could be immensely profitable... until we got slapped with a few thousand bucks per HIPAA violation x a bajillion.
The US has some very lax privacy laws in general, from what I can tell. Facebook's been slapped in Canada and the UK (and probably a lot of other countries) for privacy concerns, repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
