|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 12 2021 01:17 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 01:14 LegalLord wrote:
Anyone have any sense for if Parler has a strong legal case to sue companies like Twilio and Amazon for damages caused to their business? I'm sure there will be some suits coming their way for wrongful death and such as a result of the protests, but it also does seem like they would have some legitimate claims of business harm. They don't. It's generally right in the contracts that there are conditions under which they reserve the right to terminate service. They can try on some sort of rights-breaching grounds, I suppose, but this is quite likely right in the agreements they signed to use these services.
And those contracts are basically the only source of legal obligations governing the relations of these entities, so if there isn't a contract theory of recovery, there's nothing Parler can do. And yes, as far as those contracts tend to go without looking at these ones in particular, the standard boilerplate heavily favors unilateral rescission.
|
|
|
On January 12 2021 01:17 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 01:14 LegalLord wrote:
Anyone have any sense for if Parler has a strong legal case to sue companies like Twilio and Amazon for damages caused to their business? I'm sure there will be some suits coming their way for wrongful death and such as a result of the protests, but it also does seem like they would have some legitimate claims of business harm. They don't. It's generally right in the contracts that there are conditions under which they reserve the right to terminate service. They can try on some sort of rights-breaching grounds, I suppose, but this is quite likely right in the agreements they signed to use these services. I understand the speed with which all these companies are bandwagoning at this specific moment in time, but I find it off-putting. I've been pretty frustrated with the (inevitable) specialization and monopolization of necessary verticals that power high-usage distributed applications, and this is sort of one of my nightmare scenarios come true lol
Yeah, if anything the security breach seems like the only grounds they might have to stand on. Apple & Google stores dropping them has been litigated in the past with Epic games to no avail, so that's out. AWS, don't know if there's precedent there (edit: looks like folks have some, so that settles that), but I think "was used for illegal porpoises" will work strongly against them in any real-life trial. Not sure how people will look upon the security breach thing and if they were compromised by their vendors, although the evidence suggests Parler is a shoddy two-bit operation IT-wise.
As I mentioned before, there definitely are some alarming questions that warrant asking that are buried under the "fuck those terrorists" bandwagon. These same tools used in the same way could be very troubling under different circumstances.
|
United States43752 Posts
Big tech is walking a fine line of acting like a utility without officially being a utility but the only solution is nationalization and the US lacks the political will to do that so it won’t change. PragerU’s arguments were mostly on the utility angle if you want to watch the video I linked where Google shuts that shit down.
|
On January 12 2021 01:32 KwarK wrote:
Big tech is walking a fine line of acting like a utility without officially being a utility but the only solution is nationalization and the US lacks the political will to do that so it won’t change. PragerU’s arguments were mostly on the utility angle if you want to watch the video I linked where Google shuts that shit down.
either get it into public hands, at least partially or break it up. I am also not hopeful about it, priorities of the administration are set for the next years no matter what and after that the cards are reshuffled again with the midterms. partisan divide, insane lobbying power by big tech... since they have more money than god. not looking good.
|
On January 11 2021 23:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2021 04:10 farvacola wrote:On January 11 2021 04:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 11 2021 03:55 oBlade wrote:On January 10 2021 21:19 Silvanel wrote:BBC is reporting on charges being brought against some of insurgents: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55606044 And judging from charges those people are getting it seems like this might become new norm. Apparently You can just force Yourself into US Capitol trying to take hostegs and get: "violent entry and disorderly conduct". I know this has been repeated time after time but if they were brown & muslim they would end spending their lfies in prison (if by some miracle they would surrive entry attempt). Different crimes have different punishments - the guy with molotov cocktails will obviously get a felony, and the people who bludgeoned a police officer to death aren't likely to get off easy when found. I can't speak for skin color but in general antifa riot and loot with impunity in Portland and NYC. In Seattle the officials welcome takeovers of government centers: https://komonews.com/news/local/council-member-sawant-let-protesters-into-city-hall-to-show-it-belongs-to-the-peopleThe difference with January 6th is not that it's particularly violent compared to other protests and riots from 2020 and earlier, but that it took place where those in power work, meaning for the first time it's real for them. Also the FBI aren't ones to sit on their hands at the direction of local officials, unlike municipal law enforcement who stand by or catch and release antifa hooligans. Did you read the article? That has to be the most...relaxed takeover I've ever seen. Like Zambrah says above with reference to Dangles, don’t even bother engaging with people like this. Those who can’t talk about the literal storming of the Capitol without mentioning antifa are not interested in discussion, only in showing off their equivocation skills. It’s not a coincidence that news outlets in the Weimar Republic constantly matched reporting on Nazi shit with mentions of communism, this pattern isn’t new. Hello Mr. Godwin. The issue was explicitly raised as to what would have happened if the situation were reversed. Show nested quote +On January 11 2021 04:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 11 2021 03:55 oBlade wrote:On January 10 2021 21:19 Silvanel wrote:BBC is reporting on charges being brought against some of insurgents: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55606044 And judging from charges those people are getting it seems like this might become new norm. Apparently You can just force Yourself into US Capitol trying to take hostegs and get: "violent entry and disorderly conduct". I know this has been repeated time after time but if they were brown & muslim they would end spending their lfies in prison (if by some miracle they would surrive entry attempt). Different crimes have different punishments - the guy with molotov cocktails will obviously get a felony, and the people who bludgeoned a police officer to death aren't likely to get off easy when found. I can't speak for skin color but in general antifa riot and loot with impunity in Portland and NYC. In Seattle the officials welcome takeovers of government centers: https://komonews.com/news/local/council-member-sawant-let-protesters-into-city-hall-to-show-it-belongs-to-the-peopleThe difference with January 6th is not that it's particularly violent compared to other protests and riots from 2020 and earlier, but that it took place where those in power work, meaning for the first time it's real for them. Also the FBI aren't ones to sit on their hands at the direction of local officials, unlike municipal law enforcement who stand by or catch and release antifa hooligans. Did you read the article? That has to be the most...relaxed takeover I've ever seen. Yes, if you just let people in there's naturally less violence. It's not a perfectly analogous situation. Another one was when BLM burned down a police station in Minneapolis. Still another, protesters attacked a federal courthouse in Portland. I think those transpired without any deaths? Even though one was a federal building, the same as the Capitol. Have you seen the shooting video of the woman who died at the Capitol? When I look at it, I really think if her skin had been another color, the incident would have sparked its own protests or riots about police brutality. So it's an interesting question. The difference again seems to be that when the violence is local, progressive officials have used their own discretion to try to appease those groups through leniency. Whereas something about the Capitol is more high-risk and one might have "expectation" that the police would take fewer chances and be more likely to shoot someone.. It's hard to compare anecdotes to anecdotes but on balance it doesn't seem like the difference in treatment swings that seriously in either direction.
Storming the capitol would have been a reasonable thing to do if the elections were rigged. This is what you need to get through your skulls before posting equivalencies with BLM.
It's only through malice or idiocy that one can weigh the damage done in response to a real catalyst against the damage done in response to a fictional catalyst.
|
On January 11 2021 23:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2021 04:10 farvacola wrote:On January 11 2021 04:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 11 2021 03:55 oBlade wrote:On January 10 2021 21:19 Silvanel wrote:BBC is reporting on charges being brought against some of insurgents: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55606044 And judging from charges those people are getting it seems like this might become new norm. Apparently You can just force Yourself into US Capitol trying to take hostegs and get: "violent entry and disorderly conduct". I know this has been repeated time after time but if they were brown & muslim they would end spending their lfies in prison (if by some miracle they would surrive entry attempt). Different crimes have different punishments - the guy with molotov cocktails will obviously get a felony, and the people who bludgeoned a police officer to death aren't likely to get off easy when found. I can't speak for skin color but in general antifa riot and loot with impunity in Portland and NYC. In Seattle the officials welcome takeovers of government centers: https://komonews.com/news/local/council-member-sawant-let-protesters-into-city-hall-to-show-it-belongs-to-the-peopleThe difference with January 6th is not that it's particularly violent compared to other protests and riots from 2020 and earlier, but that it took place where those in power work, meaning for the first time it's real for them. Also the FBI aren't ones to sit on their hands at the direction of local officials, unlike municipal law enforcement who stand by or catch and release antifa hooligans. Did you read the article? That has to be the most...relaxed takeover I've ever seen. Like Zambrah says above with reference to Dangles, don’t even bother engaging with people like this. Those who can’t talk about the literal storming of the Capitol without mentioning antifa are not interested in discussion, only in showing off their equivocation skills. It’s not a coincidence that news outlets in the Weimar Republic constantly matched reporting on Nazi shit with mentions of communism, this pattern isn’t new. Hello Mr. Godwin. The issue was explicitly raised as to what would have happened if the situation were reversed. Show nested quote +On January 11 2021 04:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 11 2021 03:55 oBlade wrote:On January 10 2021 21:19 Silvanel wrote:BBC is reporting on charges being brought against some of insurgents: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55606044 And judging from charges those people are getting it seems like this might become new norm. Apparently You can just force Yourself into US Capitol trying to take hostegs and get: "violent entry and disorderly conduct". I know this has been repeated time after time but if they were brown & muslim they would end spending their lfies in prison (if by some miracle they would surrive entry attempt). Different crimes have different punishments - the guy with molotov cocktails will obviously get a felony, and the people who bludgeoned a police officer to death aren't likely to get off easy when found. I can't speak for skin color but in general antifa riot and loot with impunity in Portland and NYC. In Seattle the officials welcome takeovers of government centers: https://komonews.com/news/local/council-member-sawant-let-protesters-into-city-hall-to-show-it-belongs-to-the-peopleThe difference with January 6th is not that it's particularly violent compared to other protests and riots from 2020 and earlier, but that it took place where those in power work, meaning for the first time it's real for them. Also the FBI aren't ones to sit on their hands at the direction of local officials, unlike municipal law enforcement who stand by or catch and release antifa hooligans. Did you read the article? That has to be the most...relaxed takeover I've ever seen. Yes, if you just let people in there's naturally less violence. It's not a perfectly analogous situation. Another one was when BLM burned down a police station in Minneapolis. Still another, protesters attacked a federal courthouse in Portland. I think those transpired without any deaths? Even though one was a federal building, the same as the Capitol. Have you seen the shooting video of the woman who died at the Capitol? When I look at it, I really think if her skin had been another color, the incident would have sparked its own protests or riots about police brutality. So it's an interesting question. The difference again seems to be that when the violence is local, progressive officials have used their own discretion to try to appease those groups through leniency. Whereas something about the Capitol is more high-risk and one might have "expectation" that the police would take fewer chances and be more likely to shoot someone.. It's hard to compare anecdotes to anecdotes but on balance it doesn't seem like the difference in treatment swings that seriously in either direction.
The officers had barricaded the door and had their guns drawn because there were senators in those chambers. She attempted to climb over the barricade, with a mob behind her that would have followed her lead. Are you so blinded by your propaganda or is this calculated spinning on your part?
|
On January 12 2021 01:53 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 01:32 KwarK wrote:
Big tech is walking a fine line of acting like a utility without officially being a utility but the only solution is nationalization and the US lacks the political will to do that so it won’t change. PragerU’s arguments were mostly on the utility angle if you want to watch the video I linked where Google shuts that shit down. either get it into public hands, at least partially or break it up. I am also not hopeful about it, priorities of the administration are set for the next years no matter what and after that the cards are reshuffled again with the midterms. partisan divide, insane lobbying power by big tech... since they have more money than god. not looking good.
The conversation about big tech monopolies was at the very least broached within 2020. Don't know if Biden's admin will double down on those or drop it; I could see it go either way.
|
United States43752 Posts
There's a reason that big tech donates a lot of money to both parties.
|
On January 12 2021 02:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 01:53 Doublemint wrote:On January 12 2021 01:32 KwarK wrote:
Big tech is walking a fine line of acting like a utility without officially being a utility but the only solution is nationalization and the US lacks the political will to do that so it won’t change. PragerU’s arguments were mostly on the utility angle if you want to watch the video I linked where Google shuts that shit down. either get it into public hands, at least partially or break it up. I am also not hopeful about it, priorities of the administration are set for the next years no matter what and after that the cards are reshuffled again with the midterms. partisan divide, insane lobbying power by big tech... since they have more money than god. not looking good. The conversation about big tech monopolies was at the very least broached within 2020. Don't know if Biden's admin will double down on those or drop it; I could see it go either way.
Unfortunately, the person spearheading those efforts was... Josh Hawley. His actions were so appalling recently that I'm pretty sure he has wound up tainting efforts to do this - in a "if the person who thought it was OK to get us all killed thought it was a good idea, why would we consider it?" from senators. (and possibly even the 2k check, which he was also on board for).
|
On January 12 2021 02:02 Dan HH wrote:
Storming the capitol would have been a reasonable thing to do if the elections were rigged. This is what you need to get through your skulls before posting equivalencies with BLM.
It's only through malice or idiocy that one can weigh the damage done in response to a real catalyst against the damage done in response to a fictional catalyst.
I'm sorry I only have one skull and your point is too esoteric for me to follow, otherwise I'm happy to elevate your self-esteem.
On January 12 2021 02:04 Starlightsun wrote:
The officers had barricaded the door and had their guns drawn because there were senators in those chambers. She attempted to climb over the barricade, with a mob behind her that would have followed her lead. Are you so blinded by your propaganda or is this calculated spinning on your part?
If you have a different tactical conclusion you can explain, that is what it is. In the video you can see she's not the one in control of that mob and you can plainly see the rest of them had already backed off at the urging of the guy who also said the police had a gun, and I just thought of this may not even fit through the things because she would have a smaller build.
If you want to say something personal, you opened this. I think millions of people are so consumed by loathing for someone more powerful than them that they have no ability themselves to hurt, that they celebrate whenever someone is hurt vicariously, e.g. people being doxxed, losing their jobs for listening to a speech, getting beaten up for wearing a hat, getting shot for being riled up, getting kicked out of school for smiling... and have lost any sane hold on empathy.
|
On January 12 2021 01:14 LegalLord wrote:
Anyone have any sense for if Parler has a strong legal case to sue companies like Twilio and Amazon for damages caused to their business? I'm sure there will be some suits coming their way for wrongful death and such as a result of the protests, but it also does seem like they would have some legitimate claims of business harm.
None as far as I can tell. Amazon has reported that Parlor was in breach of their contract and had asked for moderation (with specific examples that breached their agreement) a while back. They had also repeated those requests (most posts had not been removed). I assume they just kicked them off a little earlier than they had otherwise done.
|
On January 12 2021 02:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 02:02 Dan HH wrote:
Storming the capitol would have been a reasonable thing to do if the elections were rigged. This is what you need to get through your skulls before posting equivalencies with BLM.
It's only through malice or idiocy that one can weigh the damage done in response to a real catalyst against the damage done in response to a fictional catalyst. I'm sorry I only have one skull and your point is too esoteric for me to follow, otherwise I'm happy to elevate your self-esteem. Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 02:04 Starlightsun wrote:
The officers had barricaded the door and had their guns drawn because there were senators in those chambers. She attempted to climb over the barricade, with a mob behind her that would have followed her lead. Are you so blinded by your propaganda or is this calculated spinning on your part?
If you have a different tactical conclusion you can explain, that is what it is. In the video you can see she's not the one in control of that mob and you can plainly see the rest of them had already backed off at the urging of the guy who also said the police had a gun, and I just thought of this may not even fit through the things because she would have a smaller build. If you want to say something personal, you opened this. I think millions of people are so consumed by loathing for someone more powerful than them that they have no ability themselves to hurt, that they celebrate whenever someone is hurt vicariously, e.g. people being doxxed, losing their jobs for listening to a speech, getting beaten up for wearing a hat, getting shot for being riled up, getting kicked out of school for smiling... and have lost any sane hold on empathy.
I've watched the video (multistream one) a couple of times as well as read analysis on the situation. I think it was exceptionally well handled and given the circumstances the officer (or secret service agent) who shot her probably saved a lot of lives.
I can't actually think of any other tactical approach except for shooting her.
But to humor your question: If she was black and it was BLM people the only difference would be that the small minority having any opinions on her death would be activists from the far left instead of the far right as it is now.
Also she had 12 years of service in army intelligence so she should have been well qualified to realize that when you have a secret service agent and a tac-team telling you to not cross the barricade into a high priority secure area because there are armed agents inside with guns out then you will get shot if you try. She saw the person with the gun and thought they wouldn't shoot a women.
Unfortunately for her it turns out that when you try to breach the final barrier just a few steps away from the VP and the ranking people in the senate/congress and the only tactical option is to either likely lose control of a situation where you are severely out manned or shot to kill then the security detail will shoot every single time.
Doesn't help that you are part of a riot and having a backpack/being draped in a flag that could contain anything.
|
On January 12 2021 02:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 02:02 Dan HH wrote:
Storming the capitol would have been a reasonable thing to do if the elections were rigged. This is what you need to get through your skulls before posting equivalencies with BLM.
It's only through malice or idiocy that one can weigh the damage done in response to a real catalyst against the damage done in response to a fictional catalyst. I'm sorry I only have one skull and your point is too esoteric for me to follow, otherwise I'm happy to elevate your self-esteem.
Esoteric? I'm not sure that point can be made any simpler but I'll try.
Direct action (including riots or revolutions) by itself is neither positive nor negative.
The comparision between the number of burning cars during the deposition of a dictator with the number of burning cars due to the result of a world cup match is absurd.
What we've been discussing for the past 5 days is direct action based on a complete fabrication. If BLM had destroyed buildings in response to Jussie Smoilet's (sp?) claims and you would have compared that with the storming of the capitol then you wouldn't have made an ass of yourself.
|
Norway28779 Posts
On January 12 2021 02:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 02:02 Dan HH wrote:
Storming the capitol would have been a reasonable thing to do if the elections were rigged. This is what you need to get through your skulls before posting equivalencies with BLM.
It's only through malice or idiocy that one can weigh the damage done in response to a real catalyst against the damage done in response to a fictional catalyst. I'm sorry I only have one skull and your point is too esoteric for me to follow, otherwise I'm happy to elevate your self-esteem. Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 02:04 Starlightsun wrote:
The officers had barricaded the door and had their guns drawn because there were senators in those chambers. She attempted to climb over the barricade, with a mob behind her that would have followed her lead. Are you so blinded by your propaganda or is this calculated spinning on your part?
If you have a different tactical conclusion you can explain, that is what it is. In the video you can see she's not the one in control of that mob and you can plainly see the rest of them had already backed off at the urging of the guy who also said the police had a gun, and I just thought of this may not even fit through the things because she would have a smaller build. If you want to say something personal, you opened this. I think millions of people are so consumed by loathing for someone more powerful than them that they have no ability themselves to hurt, that they celebrate whenever someone is hurt vicariously, e.g. people being doxxed, losing their jobs for listening to a speech, getting beaten up for wearing a hat, getting shot for being riled up, getting kicked out of school for smiling... and have lost any sane hold on empathy.
What if I want nothing bad to happen to people who are listening to speeches, wearing hats, getting riled up or smiling, but I'm fine with negative things happening to people attempting to storm congress? I'm not sure whether you've actually been following the thread or reading any posts in this thread or watching the news lately, but something happened Wednesday 5 days ago and people now are responding to those specific events, they're not talking about that other stuff you seemingly randomly decided to mention.
Some of the people involved in the storming of congress wanted to kidnap, and overwhelmingly likely, kill congress members. They certainly wanted them to overturn the election results. Obviously not all of them were all that dangerous - seems like a large majority were guiled by Trump into thinking what they were doing was a just and fair thing and that they'd be protected by the god-emperor, and a lot of them behaved more like drunk tourists than like insurrectionists. Trump is the main culprit here. But I also can't really be made to feel all that badly about the people who died, or the people who are losing their jobs for having taken part of this.
Like, the murders of George Floyd or Breonna Taylor sparked big protests. Some other ones, too. But almost 1000 african americans have been killed by police since 2016. Not all of those killings spark similar outrage - sometimes, if, for example, the police actually was threatened, if the person killed actually did pull out a gun, then it's largely considered justifiable self defense. The woman in question at Wednesday's coup attempt probably wasn't the offender most deserving of being shot, but I really can't be made to feel particularly bad for her, either. At best she gets a darwin award.
|
The notion that people somehow have no control or responsibility over their own actions when they actively enter the capitol building and storm the House chamber is just Oo.
The 'wrong place, wrong time' defence stopped applying several doors ago.
|
I do feel some sympathy for that woman, her own failings aside, the authorities also failed her.
This wasn't a spontaneous event and it was planned in plain sight, not on some obscure 8chan thread. There was no excuse for security to be so relaxed.
She should have had to push through riot shields, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets to get herself in a position to get shot by live ammo. From the atmosphere of the rioters in that room right before she got shot it's quite clear that was far from the case, they reached the critical danger zone all giggly and not inconvenienced.
|
As something of an aside, anyone remember several years back, when the big social media giants were singing their own praises for effecting positive change by toppling dictators? Such as in this NPR story.
When thousands of Egyptians began to gather in Tahrir Square in preparation for the planned Jan. 25, 2011, uprising, then-President Hosni Mubarak's beleaguered regime responded with familiar brutality and thuggery. And then, it made a tactical error: it clamped down on Facebook and Twitter.
"The regime's decision to block these two websites," writes Internet activist Wael Ghonim in his book, Revolution 2.0, "was a grave mistake." The Egyptian people sensed desperation in the state's actions — and proof of their own strength.
...
Ghonim is careful to emphasize that chatter on Facebook cannot by itself create social change ("History is made on the streets, not on the Internet"), but he is unabashed in his belief that sites like Facebook, by connecting people to each other, can create conditions in which they can overcome fear.
In his exhortations, Ghonim can sound a bit like a Gandhi with an M.B.A. He is concerned about the people, sure, but he also tends to think of them as a "target audience," and his observations on the revolution are littered with vague homilies taken from a management manual: "This was the Revolution 2.0 model: no one was the hero because everyone was the hero." Instead of marching to the sea to oppose harsh laws, he starts a Facebook page to mobilize protest. He does not go on fasts; he tweets. This eclectic rhetoric and orientation are, surprisingly, the great strength of Revolution 2.0. Its approach — inherently plural, modern and pragmatic — augurs well for a society on the brink of an uncertain future.
www.npr.org
I can't help but feel that this is an ugly mirror image of the very same thing they praised so heavily back then.
|
CNN is reporting that the DC Attorney General is investigating charging Trump with inciting a riot.
(The expansive view part is that he is saying that charging the president for a crime committed in DC is under his purview, rather than the federal AG. Which is an argument I'm pretty sympathetic to, but unsure of).
edit - since we just got reminded about the significance requirement of tweets, I'll say this seems pretty significant in a self-evident way? The AG may actually be able to level criminal charges.
|
It's a great move on his part because if he wins, well he wins, and if he loses, it sharpens the arguments in favor of DC statehood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
