|
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 |
Norway28747 Posts
On April 29 2021 23:36 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 29 2021 23:06 evilfatsh1t wrote:On April 29 2021 22:41 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On April 29 2021 22:28 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power. So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government? depends. threats, extortion etc. could be reported to the police to be investigated, but a comment on some random instagram girl's profile that says "lul youre a fat ugly whore" doesnt pass for something that should be moderated by the government. instagram can moderate speech. tl can moderate speech. the government should be VERY careful about regulating any form of speech. users of any platform that opens themselves up to abuse should use the platforms at their own risk and take into consideration the fact that there will be people who say shit on the internet. asking for government intervention is a whole other level that could be far more disastrous than individuals having their feelings hurt by anonymous posters. You’re using the word “threats” like it’s some bright line that users of online platforms can easily and readily acknowledge in submitting themselves to said platforms. Basically nothing about legal issues arising out of regulation of threats suggests that to be true, this stuff is incredibly murky no matter how the issues are presented, which is why I was curious about jock’s categorical take on government involvement in online speech. well yeah that was my point as well. it would be impossible for government to create legislation that effectively determines when a line has been crossed, and if governments cant define clearly what theyre legislating then it shouldnt be done at all. i agree with jock on what would be reportable to the police, although even that is vague. Lots of laws are somewhat arbitrary. That's unavoidable, and not a reason to avoid legislating something. saying it shouldnt be done at all was probably an exaggeration. however for this particular topic, when you risk something as fundamental as the freedom of speech then i would say my statement is still true. you cant attempt to write legislation to control one's speech and not be absolutely clear on what the limits are. if it gets too vague or grey, then it simply shouldnt be done and the onus should fall onto the individuals.
I do largely agree that government should be very careful with controlling speech, and there are certainly a lot of examples of speech that I want TL, or instagram, or twitter, or whatever to ban, but where I wouldn't want government to intervene.
However, it doesn't really address the arbitrariness of it, because no matter where you set the limit for where government is supposed to intervene (I think most of us agree that threatening to kill someone should be illegal, and I think most of us agree that saying 'I personally find homosexuals disgusting' should be legal - but at some point between 'faggots are disgusting' and 'there's this faggot living in x house on x street, you group of neo-nazis that I'm currently talking to should go kill him', we're entering 'government should intervene'-terrain), whether that limit is passed is always gonna be somewhat arbitrarily defined, unless you choose to go the algorithm route of simply banning certain words or combinations of words, which is problematic in even more ways.
|
I’m very happy that you can’t say in public that Hitler was right to burn jews in my country. Seeing the Westboro baptist church protesting outside gay people funerals with sign saying “Jesus hates fags” makes you realize that free speech shouldn’t be a dogma and that sometimes, there really should be laws to prevent people from expressing certain ideas in public.
|
the thing from the get go is that free spech is fundamentally differently understood in the US than in the EU for instance. from a historical point that persists until today.
which is fine overall, since there are quite some overlaps anyway. "we" (as in most western EU countries) are just less fundamentalist about it. which is a curb, a limitation of free speech definitely. though there are good reasons for that, reasons one can argue. based on a different weighing of legally protected interests.
might be our "the weak need to be defended by the nanny state" attitude in comparison to "f your feelings, even (or particularly) if you are weak". think about Westborough like mentioned above - hate groups that demonstrate next to iraq vet's funerals and scream from the top of their lungs to the bereaved that god hates them, and their loved ones died in vain.
the outcry this would generate around here, let alone to suggest such a thing. no one would do this or a similar thing( well, so far and as far as I know lol)
I definitely see the appeal of absolute free speech, though with the example above, among others, I am more than torn. and I am not alone with it apparently. as there is a good point to be made that it does not look a lot like freedom but an excess of idiocy and hate masked as freedom.
but both are not without its merits and problems, that's the general gist of it.
|
Not really anything in particular, but I'm glad to see this happening now (though it probably won't amount to anything.) My disdain for menthol smokes and the stereotype it brings with it is sky high. Hopefully this cuts back on Black Americans getting cancer far earlier than their other counterparts. Fuck Newports.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says it is moving to ban menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, based on the evidence of the addictiveness and harm of the products.
"Banning menthol — the last allowable flavor — in cigarettes and banning all flavors in cigars will help save lives, particularly among those disproportionately affected by these deadly products," Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock said in a statement Thursday. "With these actions, the FDA will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers, and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ+ individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products."
The decision follows previous actions that banned other flavored cigarettes in 2009.
"Menthol masks unpleasant flavors and harshness of tobacco products, making them easier to start using. Tobacco products with menthol can also be more addictive and harder to quit by enhancing the effects of nicotine," the FDA explains.
Source
QE: Now to remove high fructose corn syrup from literally everything. That would probably have the single biggest net benefit for American society as a whole.
|
I don't know how much that helps when you just replace the HFCS with sugar instead.
|
On April 29 2021 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I’m very happy that you can’t say in public that Hitler was right to burn jews in my country. Seeing the Westboro baptist church protesting outside gay people funerals with sign saying “Jesus hates fags” makes you realize that free speech shouldn’t be a dogma and that sometimes, there really should be laws to prevent people from expressing certain ideas in public.
I think both of your examples are really low-hanging fruit though, in terms of social positions that are far more controversial than most rhetoric. What happens, however, when the speech being restricted is something less extreme than literally Hitler? We can try drawing a line at "does this speech directly put people in danger", or something to that effect (e.g., shouting fire in a crowded movie theater and causing a mass panic, which can lead to injury), but it can be really hard to pin down what would / wouldn't fall into that bucket, how "danger" is even defined in the first place, and how dangerous the speech is.
I just don't know how easy it is to create clear rules and regulations when limiting speech, and either side (allowing too little speech vs. allowing too much speech) could have detrimental effects on society.
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 02:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 29 2021 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I’m very happy that you can’t say in public that Hitler was right to burn jews in my country. Seeing the Westboro baptist church protesting outside gay people funerals with sign saying “Jesus hates fags” makes you realize that free speech shouldn’t be a dogma and that sometimes, there really should be laws to prevent people from expressing certain ideas in public. I think both of your examples are really low-hanging fruit though, in terms of social positions that are far more controversial than most rhetoric. What happens, however, when the speech being restricted is something less extreme than literally Hitler? We can try drawing a line at "does this speech directly put people in danger", or something to that effect (e.g., shouting fire in a crowded movie theater and causing a mass panic, which can lead to injury), but it can be really hard to pin down what would / wouldn't fall into that bucket, how "danger" is even defined in the first place, and how dangerous the speech is. I just don't know how easy it is to create clear rules and regulations when limiting speech, and either side (allowing too little speech vs. allowing too much speech) could have detrimental effects on society. I think one line that would be fairly easy to draw would be for people making money off it. Whether that is ad revenue or what. That once you are making a income or promoting something you are selling the bar of speaking truth goes way up.
Are we still speaking in terms of removing the right to free speech in public, or merely ostracizing / deplatforming / demonetizing speech containing lies and misinformation? As in, should it be literally illegal - some sort of crime - for someone like Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Donald Trump to say half the things they say? Is it even practical to fact-check them on every statement they make and fine them (or whatever the punishment is) for their endless lists of falsehoods?
I would hope/prefer that society would all agree to "cancel" the kind of guy who wears a "Hitler Was Correct" shirt, or something less extreme like an idiot who just spews bullshit all day on their YouTube channels / television shows (as in, their actions have consequences, and they'll hopefully get fired, lose friends, and ultimately come to understand that they're responsible/accountable for what they say/do), but I don't know how it would work as a law, and surely there would be plenty of instances where I would think that the person/speech was actually innocuous and not a big deal.
|
I'll be so impressed if Biden delivers on free 2 year Pre-K and college. Now if he would recognize Israel apartheid I would be completely floored.
|
Norway28747 Posts
If he did that I'd be truly amazed. I don't see that coming, though. So far I think pretty much everything he's done is actually stuff with widespread support, while the Israel-Palestine question I don't think is equally clear cut with 'moderate' democrats.
|
On April 30 2021 01:08 Doublemint wrote:
the thing from the get go is that free spech is fundamentally differently understood in the US than in the EU for instance. from a historical point that persists until today.
which is fine overall, since there are quite some overlaps anyway. "we" (as in most western EU countries) are just less fundamentalist about it. which is a curb, a limitation of free speech definitely. though there are good reasons for that, reasons one can argue. based on a different weighing of legally protected interests.
might be our "the weak need to be defended by the nanny state" attitude in comparison to "f your feelings, even (or particularly) if you are weak". think about Westborough like mentioned above - hate groups that demonstrate next to iraq vet's funerals and scream from the top of their lungs to the bereaved that god hates them, and their loved ones died in vain.
the outcry this would generate around here, let alone to suggest such a thing. no one would do this or a similar thing( well, so far and as far as I know lol)
I definitely see the appeal of absolute free speech, though with the example above, among others, I am more than torn. and I am not alone with it apparently. as there is a good point to be made that it does not look a lot like freedom but an excess of idiocy and hate masked as freedom.
but both are not without its merits and problems, that's the general gist of it.
Well, you're not going to prison for expressing yourself as long as it ain't against the law. Child abuse, Holocaust denial, pedophilia, sexism, racism,...
If you say that government sucks, nobody is batting an eye.
If you say let's kill some politicians, different story, but in clear contrast to the law.
The list goes on. Where some people consider it ambiguous is anti lockdown protests. But these are often infiltrated by right wing conspiracy theorists that are afraid of being microchipped or of George Soros ruling the world through his network of lizard people or whatever.
These people aren't just a danger to themselves but also to others, hence their right of expression infringes on other people's rights of safety. So I think it's only fair if the state curbes the freedom of those who need to take the freedom of others to supposedly express their own.
|
|
|
United States43643 Posts
On April 28 2021 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Yes but thats not how human nature works. Sure it would be great if people were willing to just donate all their excess cash for good causes but charities work by creating communities around things and holding events from that community. I don't hunt pheasants but I really enjoy the events they put on.
The Black Rhinos that are auctioned off to kill need to be killed for the betterment of the herd and would be killed regardless of them monetizing it or not. I'm genuinely surprised that they haven't offered rich Americans a chance to go on a patrol for paochers, I know a number of people who have specifically asked for that on facebook.
Out of curiousity, is there a line for you with this logic? Would you be fine with an animal shelter that let rich sadists pay to be the one to euthanize the sick dogs?
I feel like there has to be a point where you draw the line on what you put up with from rich assholes just because the good their money does outweighs the shitty thing they want to do. The greater good argument only goes so far.
|
This one slipped under the radar for me last week www.theguardian.com
Arizona Republicans to begin auditing 2020 ballots
The audit will be solely focused on Maricopa county, the largest in the state and home to a majority of Arizona’s voters. Biden narrowly defeated Trump in the county, a crucial battleground that helped the president win Arizona by around 10,000 votes. The audit will include a hand recount of all 2.1m ballots cast in the county, a process expected to take months.
Way to continue to undermine the election results and give conspiracy theories even more ammunition. I would also question the wisdom of tasking a cybersecurity company to lead a manual count of the ballots, but none of this makes sense anyway.
It seems the only reason they were selected (Cyberninjas) is because the CEO supported the stolen election baseless claim from the beginning.
Alarm over the audit has escalated in recent weeks after Republicans announced the firms that would be leading the effort. The company that will lead the audit, a Florida-based company called Cyber Ninjas, is led by Doug Logan, who supported several baseless conspiracy theories about the election. In December, he retweeted a post that questioned the validity of Maricopa’s ballot count and falsely said Trump may have gotten 200,000 more votes than were reported in Arizona, according to the Arizona Mirror, which first reported his involvement in the audit.
He also made statistical comparisons between elections in Venezuela and the 2020 race in a tweet that included a “stop the steal” hashtag, according to the Mirror. Cyber Ninjas is not accredited by the US Election Assistance Commission to inspect voting machines, the Washington Post reported.
|
On April 29 2021 23:08 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. No, it isn't.
I don't know why it seems like people here have to reject obviously true statements. We have to argue on what the word pause means now? What's your interpretation of "we recommend pausing the use of the J&J vaccine" if it doesn't mean to stop administering/receiving the J&J vaccine for some period of time?
|
On April 30 2021 04:35 EnDeR_ wrote:This one slipped under the radar for me last week www.theguardian.comShow nested quote +Arizona Republicans to begin auditing 2020 ballots
The audit will be solely focused on Maricopa county, the largest in the state and home to a majority of Arizona’s voters. Biden narrowly defeated Trump in the county, a crucial battleground that helped the president win Arizona by around 10,000 votes. The audit will include a hand recount of all 2.1m ballots cast in the county, a process expected to take months. Way to continue to undermine the election results and give conspiracy theories even more ammunition. I would also question the wisdom of tasking a cybersecurity company to lead a manual count of the ballots, but none of this makes sense anyway. It seems the only reason they were selected (Cyberninjas) is because the CEO supported the stolen election baseless claim from the beginning. Show nested quote +Alarm over the audit has escalated in recent weeks after Republicans announced the firms that would be leading the effort. The company that will lead the audit, a Florida-based company called Cyber Ninjas, is led by Doug Logan, who supported several baseless conspiracy theories about the election. In December, he retweeted a post that questioned the validity of Maricopa’s ballot count and falsely said Trump may have gotten 200,000 more votes than were reported in Arizona, according to the Arizona Mirror, which first reported his involvement in the audit.
He also made statistical comparisons between elections in Venezuela and the 2020 race in a tweet that included a “stop the steal” hashtag, according to the Mirror. Cyber Ninjas is not accredited by the US Election Assistance Commission to inspect voting machines, the Washington Post reported.
I support every last bit of it. they should count, recount and after that recount the count of the recount of the recount. just to be sure of course. elections are so easily stolen these days. cyberninjas, literally everywhere!
and again just to be sure. /s
|
|
|
some great news again for the economy, the latest numbers. I as a European approve of the US jumpstarting the train that moves us all forward.
Consumer-fueled economy pushes GDP to 6.4% first-quarter gain
Economic activity boomed to start 2021, as widespread vaccinations and more fuel from government spending helped get the U.S. closer to where it was before the Covid-19 pandemic struck, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.
Gross domestic product, the sum of all goods and services produced in the economy, jumped 6.4% for the first three months of the year on an annualized basis. Outside of the reopening-fueled third-quarter surge last year, it was the best period for GDP since the third quarter of 2003.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for a 6.5% increase. Q4 of 2020 accelerated at a 4.3% pace.
“This signals the economy is off and running and it will be a boom-like year,” said Mark Zandi chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Obviously, the American consumer is powering the train and businesses are investing strongly.”
In a separate report Thursday, the Labor Department said initial jobless claims fell to a pandemic-era low last week, but the number was higher than expected.
outlook is really, really good. "job creators" need to pay more to get the people doing the actual work as demand is high. although inflation is going to surge as well. let's see who is flinching first/what is happening first.
|
On April 30 2021 05:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 04:52 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 23:08 Artisreal wrote:On April 29 2021 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. No, it isn't. I don't know why it seems like people here have to reject obviously true statements. We have to argue on what the word pause means now? What's your interpretation of "we recommend pausing the use of the J&J vaccine" if it doesn't mean to stop administering/receiving the J&J vaccine for some period of time? If the government says "were pausing dentistry until we better understand the pandemic" is the the same as the government saying "don't go to dentists"?
Yes... That's exactly what it means... If the government pauses indoor dining are you saying that's not the government endorsing the idea that you shouldn't dine indoors? It would be really bizarre to draw any other conclusion.
|
The issue is what you're insinuating, which is why people are arguing over semantics. Pausing something to be extra careful isn't the same as banning that activity. It' just a temporary pause. Suggesting, rather thinly, that it means the vaccine
is unsafe and dining indoors is banned is not good faith. It's fear mongering and feeding conspiracies. In line with JC's comment, if the government said "don't use this specific medicine/surgery method as it's effectiveness is still under review" it isn't saying it won't be available later on, it's just erring on the side of caution. It isn't telling you what you are allowed to do, it is giving guidance. It isn't restricting free speech for people who fear monger, it is simply advising you that a certain course of action may not be wise at this moment and further action/oversight/study is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
