|
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 April 13 2022 13:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 12:59 Gahlo wrote:
Farms not willing to pay a wage Americans are willing to take for the job is the real story there, imo. Yes, I agree with that. As I described in a previous message, I totally drank the koolaid of "foreign workers are willing to do jobs americans aren't willing to do", right until people started quitting, demanding higher wages, then receiving higher wages. When a farmer says "come pick fruit for $8/hour" and no one shows up, it doesn't mean Americans won't do the work. It means the employment is predatory. If that was $20/hour, a lot more people would show up. Illegal immigrants being willing to work for less is not some wonderful synergy, it is damaging to the lower class. One of the best examples of what is essentially employer-welfare is people saying stuff like "do you have any idea how hard it is to run a restaurant? If I had to pay people $20/hour, I'd go out of business" Yes, it sounds like that should happen. Apparently you aren't good at what you are trying to do. Your business should shut down, because as you pointed out, you are trying to do something very difficult and not doing a good job. A big part of the problem is that business owners feel an implied sense of exceptionalism. The idea that they can't afford to pay people well because their business sucks and they suck as owners never enters their mind. If farmer joe can only afford to pay illegal immigrants, farmer joe is a shitty farmer and needs to close down. Not saying your wrong, but considering we're talking about the most basic of human needs, food, I do think you should spend a minute thinking about the knock on effect to food prices.
Everyone wants cheap affordable food and that cheapness has to come from somewhere. It may be different in America but I don't think farmers are rolling in money made off the backs of cheap labor.
|
United States44121 Posts
On April 13 2022 14:13 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 13:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2022 12:59 Gahlo wrote:
Farms not willing to pay a wage Americans are willing to take for the job is the real story there, imo. Yes, I agree with that. As I described in a previous message, I totally drank the koolaid of "foreign workers are willing to do jobs americans aren't willing to do", right until people started quitting, demanding higher wages, then receiving higher wages. When a farmer says "come pick fruit for $8/hour" and no one shows up, it doesn't mean Americans won't do the work. It means the employment is predatory. If that was $20/hour, a lot more people would show up. Illegal immigrants being willing to work for less is not some wonderful synergy, it is damaging to the lower class. One of the best examples of what is essentially employer-welfare is people saying stuff like "do you have any idea how hard it is to run a restaurant? If I had to pay people $20/hour, I'd go out of business" Yes, it sounds like that should happen. Apparently you aren't good at what you are trying to do. Your business should shut down, because as you pointed out, you are trying to do something very difficult and not doing a good job. A big part of the problem is that business owners feel an implied sense of exceptionalism. The idea that they can't afford to pay people well because their business sucks and they suck as owners never enters their mind. If farmer joe can only afford to pay illegal immigrants, farmer joe is a shitty farmer and needs to close down. We have a similar problem in Australia. Our farms heavily rely on 'backpackers' and 'seasonal workers' who come to Australia on a visa, work for a few months and leave. When Covid hit, no one was allowed to come to Australia, and many farms struggled whether they were massive farms or small family owned businesses. The government set up schemes to lure students and other young people to work there, but turns out people just don't like working for 12 hours under the sun, or being stuck in the middle of nowhere for months and having no night life. By all standards, those wages would be double or triple what they would have been making in the city. The farmers also have another issue - the market for produce is really tight and margins are low, mostly because the wholesalers such as supermarkets don't pay that much. If the supermarkets paid more, they would have to raise prices, and then you have inflation which makes everyone's newly-increased wages worth less anyway. I'm not even sure what the solution to this problem is.
Paying more wages does not mean an equal increase in prices at the supermarket. It’s always presented as double wages = double prices = exact same purchasing power which is obviously wrong if you think about it for half a second. Higher wages = higher costs but doubling the wages of a strawberry picker does not mean doubling the price of strawberries on the shelf and even if it did that would not mean halving the purchasing power of the wages unless that purchasing power was expressed entirely in strawberries. There are many components to the cost of strawberries of which picking labour is just one. And many people have expenses outside the purchase of strawberries such as fuel and rent which would not be significantly impacted by strawberry based inflation.
It’s the old Ben Shapiro raising the minimum wage = raising costs = inflation = same effective purchasing power as before meme that only works if you don’t put any numbers in and don’t think about it too much.
|
|
|
On April 13 2022 15:59 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 15:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 13 2022 14:19 Nick_54 wrote:On April 13 2022 14:13 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2022 13:27 Nick_54 wrote:On April 12 2022 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2022 04:57 plasmidghost wrote:
With the midterms happening in seven months, what can Biden do to improve seriously lagging poll numbers and enthusiasm? More importantly, what will he be likely to do? 1) Targeted tax on all billionaires 2) Substantial student loan reform 3) Don't touch abortion with a 10 ft pole 4) Don't touch immigration with a 10 ft pole 5) Executive order on something related to drug prices 6) Executive order on something related to child tax credit 7) Executive order on weed 8) Take obvious action in Ukraine such that the Ukraine war wraps up and the US had an obvious, large role in Russia losing 9) Gas prices average down to $3 10) Inflation not a big deal anymore through some mechanism If he got at least some of these things done I'd consider voting for him. If he just sits on his hands its not going to happen for me and I'm sure many others. The democratic party needs a reset, hopefully they do it voluntarily, if not it will happen anyway starting with the midterms. The bare minimum for me are the things he can do with executive order: student loans and weed. If he doesn't even do that, I completely give up and I have no incentive to vote for him. I already live in a safe blue state so my vote is entirely symbolic anyway. I won't vote for a single democrat, local or otherwise, if he fails to tackle student loans and weed. Agreed, especially since he promised both and has 100% authority to act on both through executive orders. What exactly would Biden do on weed though? An EO would not make it legal to smoke or buy or sell weed in states where those things are illegal by state law. As for student loans it's another highly questionable executive move, similar to Obama's DACA and Trump’s wall. It is illegal to possess, trade or use Marijuana in the US because it is a Schedule 1 drug. That categorization is done by the FDA which is an executive agency. In theory Biden could direct the FDA to remove it from that list. Of course then lawsuits would ensue, but anything Biden did was going to get challenged in court anyway.
In the US weed is illegal not just under the federal law that gives it a certain "schedule" but also under a lot of state laws. Biden can't change those state laws by EO, so weed would still be illegal under state law.
|
On April 13 2022 15:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 14:19 Nick_54 wrote:On April 13 2022 14:13 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2022 13:27 Nick_54 wrote:On April 12 2022 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2022 04:57 plasmidghost wrote:
With the midterms happening in seven months, what can Biden do to improve seriously lagging poll numbers and enthusiasm? More importantly, what will he be likely to do? 1) Targeted tax on all billionaires 2) Substantial student loan reform 3) Don't touch abortion with a 10 ft pole 4) Don't touch immigration with a 10 ft pole 5) Executive order on something related to drug prices 6) Executive order on something related to child tax credit 7) Executive order on weed 8) Take obvious action in Ukraine such that the Ukraine war wraps up and the US had an obvious, large role in Russia losing 9) Gas prices average down to $3 10) Inflation not a big deal anymore through some mechanism If he got at least some of these things done I'd consider voting for him. If he just sits on his hands its not going to happen for me and I'm sure many others. The democratic party needs a reset, hopefully they do it voluntarily, if not it will happen anyway starting with the midterms. The bare minimum for me are the things he can do with executive order: student loans and weed. If he doesn't even do that, I completely give up and I have no incentive to vote for him. I already live in a safe blue state so my vote is entirely symbolic anyway. I won't vote for a single democrat, local or otherwise, if he fails to tackle student loans and weed. Agreed, especially since he promised both and has 100% authority to act on both through executive orders. What exactly would Biden do on weed though? An EO would not make it legal to smoke or buy or sell weed in states where those things are illegal by state law. As for student loans it's another highly questionable executive move, similar to Obama's DACA and Trump’s wall.
The DEA can reschedule it and he can instruct the DEA to not do anything regarding weed.
On April 14 2022 00:12 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 15:59 gobbledydook wrote:On April 13 2022 15:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 13 2022 14:19 Nick_54 wrote:On April 13 2022 14:13 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2022 13:27 Nick_54 wrote:On April 12 2022 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2022 04:57 plasmidghost wrote:
With the midterms happening in seven months, what can Biden do to improve seriously lagging poll numbers and enthusiasm? More importantly, what will he be likely to do? 1) Targeted tax on all billionaires 2) Substantial student loan reform 3) Don't touch abortion with a 10 ft pole 4) Don't touch immigration with a 10 ft pole 5) Executive order on something related to drug prices 6) Executive order on something related to child tax credit 7) Executive order on weed 8) Take obvious action in Ukraine such that the Ukraine war wraps up and the US had an obvious, large role in Russia losing 9) Gas prices average down to $3 10) Inflation not a big deal anymore through some mechanism If he got at least some of these things done I'd consider voting for him. If he just sits on his hands its not going to happen for me and I'm sure many others. The democratic party needs a reset, hopefully they do it voluntarily, if not it will happen anyway starting with the midterms. The bare minimum for me are the things he can do with executive order: student loans and weed. If he doesn't even do that, I completely give up and I have no incentive to vote for him. I already live in a safe blue state so my vote is entirely symbolic anyway. I won't vote for a single democrat, local or otherwise, if he fails to tackle student loans and weed. Agreed, especially since he promised both and has 100% authority to act on both through executive orders. What exactly would Biden do on weed though? An EO would not make it legal to smoke or buy or sell weed in states where those things are illegal by state law. As for student loans it's another highly questionable executive move, similar to Obama's DACA and Trump’s wall. It is illegal to possess, trade or use Marijuana in the US because it is a Schedule 1 drug. That categorization is done by the FDA which is an executive agency. In theory Biden could direct the FDA to remove it from that list. Of course then lawsuits would ensue, but anything Biden did was going to get challenged in court anyway. In the US weed is illegal not just under the federal law that gives it a certain "schedule" but also under a lot of state laws. Biden can't change those state laws by EO, so weed would still be illegal under state law.
Let the baboons in those states keep it illegal under state law if they want. If Biden at least makes every effort he can to do what he can regarding weed, that is good enough for me. I just want Biden to actually fight for something. He has unturned rocks right now just sitting idle. Trump didn't solve half the problems he promised, but he gave it an honest shot. No one believes Trump didn't fight for what he believes in. Trump, through fighting for his various causes, had a big impact on the culture of the country, specifically the republican party. Biden's leadership is absolute dog shit compared to Trump on a cultural level. By sitting on his hands, he is failing to inspire his voters.
The dummy states you described will have their culture influenced by the government changes I am proposing. Legality and other government action always has an impact on cultures, similar to how legalizing gay marriage and interracial marriage did.
No one expected Trump to bring illegal immigration down to zero. When he at least gave an honest shot at building the wall, people gave him a green check mark. It was not reasonable to expect Trump to build the wall entirely overnight or for it to be purely successful. People just wanted the effort. Biden is not giving that to Democrats. By failing to issue executive orders, he is shitting the bed.
|
|
|
On April 13 2022 12:59 Gahlo wrote:
Farms not willing to pay a wage Americans are willing to take for the job is the real story there, imo.
On April 13 2022 17:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 13:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2022 12:59 Gahlo wrote:
Farms not willing to pay a wage Americans are willing to take for the job is the real story there, imo. Yes, I agree with that. As I described in a previous message, I totally drank the koolaid of "foreign workers are willing to do jobs americans aren't willing to do", right until people started quitting, demanding higher wages, then receiving higher wages. When a farmer says "come pick fruit for $8/hour" and no one shows up, it doesn't mean Americans won't do the work. It means the employment is predatory. If that was $20/hour, a lot more people would show up. Illegal immigrants being willing to work for less is not some wonderful synergy, it is damaging to the lower class. One of the best examples of what is essentially employer-welfare is people saying stuff like "do you have any idea how hard it is to run a restaurant? If I had to pay people $20/hour, I'd go out of business" Yes, it sounds like that should happen. Apparently you aren't good at what you are trying to do. Your business should shut down, because as you pointed out, you are trying to do something very difficult and not doing a good job. A big part of the problem is that business owners feel an implied sense of exceptionalism. The idea that they can't afford to pay people well because their business sucks and they suck as owners never enters their mind. If farmer joe can only afford to pay illegal immigrants, farmer joe is a shitty farmer and needs to close down. Not saying your wrong, but considering we're talking about the most basic of human needs, food, I do think you should spend a minute thinking about the knock on effect to food prices. Everyone wants cheap affordable food and that cheapness has to come from somewhere. It may be different in America but I don't think farmers are rolling in money made off the backs of cheap labor.
As gobbledygook touched on, though, the problem isn't food price. The problem is that what you pay for food is not what the farmer gets for that food. And farmers don't have the leverage to negotiate a price (although they really should). So what ends up happening is that they look at the price they can sell their tomatoes for, and how much they'd have to pay laborers to pick them, and the net sum at the end of it all is negative. They don't *want* to let their produce go to waste, but paying a living wage to an American who wants to do the job is literally more expensive than leaving the tomatoes on the field to rot at the prices wholesalers and middlemen pay for tomatoes.
Part of it is due to globalization, but a lot of it is just due to shitty exploitative business practices where farmers don't actually own the land they work, but instead lease it from the land owner and in that contract are bound to hundreds of shitty rules. Such as for instance, locking it that they can only sell their produce to one specific company (who just happens to be owned by the same landowner), or their lease contract is voided.
At the end of the day, I'm sure Wallmart could easily soak up the cost of buying the tomatoes at a price that allows the farmer to pay American workers a living wage. But why should they, when they don't have to? And if there *is* a local shortage of tomatoes because they refuse to increase the price they pay, then there is a global supply chain that allows them to import tomatoes from Chile (where the laborers are exploited at least as badly), at only a slightly higher price than they were paying Arizona farmers...
|
|
|
On April 14 2022 06:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 12:59 Gahlo wrote:
Farms not willing to pay a wage Americans are willing to take for the job is the real story there, imo. Show nested quote +On April 13 2022 17:59 Gorsameth wrote:On April 13 2022 13:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2022 12:59 Gahlo wrote:
Farms not willing to pay a wage Americans are willing to take for the job is the real story there, imo. Yes, I agree with that. As I described in a previous message, I totally drank the koolaid of "foreign workers are willing to do jobs americans aren't willing to do", right until people started quitting, demanding higher wages, then receiving higher wages. When a farmer says "come pick fruit for $8/hour" and no one shows up, it doesn't mean Americans won't do the work. It means the employment is predatory. If that was $20/hour, a lot more people would show up. Illegal immigrants being willing to work for less is not some wonderful synergy, it is damaging to the lower class. One of the best examples of what is essentially employer-welfare is people saying stuff like "do you have any idea how hard it is to run a restaurant? If I had to pay people $20/hour, I'd go out of business" Yes, it sounds like that should happen. Apparently you aren't good at what you are trying to do. Your business should shut down, because as you pointed out, you are trying to do something very difficult and not doing a good job. A big part of the problem is that business owners feel an implied sense of exceptionalism. The idea that they can't afford to pay people well because their business sucks and they suck as owners never enters their mind. If farmer joe can only afford to pay illegal immigrants, farmer joe is a shitty farmer and needs to close down. Not saying your wrong, but considering we're talking about the most basic of human needs, food, I do think you should spend a minute thinking about the knock on effect to food prices. Everyone wants cheap affordable food and that cheapness has to come from somewhere. It may be different in America but I don't think farmers are rolling in money made off the backs of cheap labor. As gobbledygook touched on, though, the problem isn't food price. The problem is that what you pay for food is not what the farmer gets for that food. And farmers don't have the leverage to negotiate a price (although they really should). So what ends up happening is that they look at the price they can sell their tomatoes for, and how much they'd have to pay laborers to pick them, and the net sum at the end of it all is negative. They don't *want* to let their produce go to waste, but paying a living wage to an American who wants to do the job is literally more expensive than leaving the tomatoes on the field to rot at the prices wholesalers and middlemen pay for tomatoes. Part of it is due to globalization, but a lot of it is just due to shitty exploitative business practices where farmers don't actually own the land they work, but instead lease it from the land owner and in that contract are bound to hundreds of shitty rules. Such as for instance, locking it that they can only sell their produce to one specific company (who just happens to be owned by the same landowner), or their lease contract is voided. At the end of the day, I'm sure Wallmart could easily soak up the cost of buying the tomatoes at a price that allows the farmer to pay American workers a living wage. But why should they, when they don't have to? And if there *is* a local shortage of tomatoes because they refuse to increase the price they pay, then there is a global supply chain that allows them to import tomatoes from Chile (where the laborers are exploited at least as badly), at only a slightly higher price than they were paying Arizona farmers...
I bet if we audited farming subsidies we could find more than enough money to shift to more useful goal, like making it so farmers can afford to pay people reasonable wages for their work instead of drowning us in high fructose corn syrup. IIRC, dairy farms are a loss pit without subsidies.
|
On April 14 2022 10:03 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2022 06:16 Acrofales wrote:On April 13 2022 12:59 Gahlo wrote:
Farms not willing to pay a wage Americans are willing to take for the job is the real story there, imo. On April 13 2022 17:59 Gorsameth wrote:On April 13 2022 13:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2022 12:59 Gahlo wrote:
Farms not willing to pay a wage Americans are willing to take for the job is the real story there, imo. Yes, I agree with that. As I described in a previous message, I totally drank the koolaid of "foreign workers are willing to do jobs americans aren't willing to do", right until people started quitting, demanding higher wages, then receiving higher wages. When a farmer says "come pick fruit for $8/hour" and no one shows up, it doesn't mean Americans won't do the work. It means the employment is predatory. If that was $20/hour, a lot more people would show up. Illegal immigrants being willing to work for less is not some wonderful synergy, it is damaging to the lower class. One of the best examples of what is essentially employer-welfare is people saying stuff like "do you have any idea how hard it is to run a restaurant? If I had to pay people $20/hour, I'd go out of business" Yes, it sounds like that should happen. Apparently you aren't good at what you are trying to do. Your business should shut down, because as you pointed out, you are trying to do something very difficult and not doing a good job. A big part of the problem is that business owners feel an implied sense of exceptionalism. The idea that they can't afford to pay people well because their business sucks and they suck as owners never enters their mind. If farmer joe can only afford to pay illegal immigrants, farmer joe is a shitty farmer and needs to close down. Not saying your wrong, but considering we're talking about the most basic of human needs, food, I do think you should spend a minute thinking about the knock on effect to food prices. Everyone wants cheap affordable food and that cheapness has to come from somewhere. It may be different in America but I don't think farmers are rolling in money made off the backs of cheap labor. As gobbledygook touched on, though, the problem isn't food price. The problem is that what you pay for food is not what the farmer gets for that food. And farmers don't have the leverage to negotiate a price (although they really should). So what ends up happening is that they look at the price they can sell their tomatoes for, and how much they'd have to pay laborers to pick them, and the net sum at the end of it all is negative. They don't *want* to let their produce go to waste, but paying a living wage to an American who wants to do the job is literally more expensive than leaving the tomatoes on the field to rot at the prices wholesalers and middlemen pay for tomatoes. Part of it is due to globalization, but a lot of it is just due to shitty exploitative business practices where farmers don't actually own the land they work, but instead lease it from the land owner and in that contract are bound to hundreds of shitty rules. Such as for instance, locking it that they can only sell their produce to one specific company (who just happens to be owned by the same landowner), or their lease contract is voided. At the end of the day, I'm sure Wallmart could easily soak up the cost of buying the tomatoes at a price that allows the farmer to pay American workers a living wage. But why should they, when they don't have to? And if there *is* a local shortage of tomatoes because they refuse to increase the price they pay, then there is a global supply chain that allows them to import tomatoes from Chile (where the laborers are exploited at least as badly), at only a slightly higher price than they were paying Arizona farmers... I bet if we audited farming subsidies we could find more than enough money to shift to more useful goal, like making it so farmers can afford to pay people reasonable wages for their work instead of drowning us in high fructose corn syrup. IIRC, dairy farms are a loss pit without subsidies.
Psychologically speaking, losing something has a much greater impact than gaining something.
So if you move a subsidy from one industry to another, you generate very angry losers and slightly grateful winners.
That's why it's a very difficult topic.
|
Dairy farms are a pit and we are drowned in corn syrup because heavy subsidized agricultural production in America is the only way it survives in the face if third world competition.
Keeping an agricultural industry alive is a matter of national security for the united states atm. If we formed a tighter union with Mexico and canadia we could drop a lot of them and replace it with agricultural production in Mexico. With nafta we could just drop them and go with it as it is but we can't trust the environment down there and interviening in such a way would violate their sovereignty.
|
On April 15 2022 08:54 Sermokala wrote:
Dairy farms are a pit and we are drowned in corn syrup because heavy subsidized agricultural production in America is the only way it survives in the face if third world competition.
Keeping an agricultural industry alive is a matter of national security for the united states atm. If we formed a tighter union with Mexico and canadia we could drop a lot of them and replace it with agricultural production in Mexico. With nafta we could just drop them and go with it as it is but we can't trust the environment down there and interviening in such a way would violate their sovereignty.
I agree with this entirely. And from where I am standing, we need to crank the subsidies up even harder, in a more targetted way, so that farmers can pay a living wage rather than relying on illegal immigrants to work for cheap. I would pick fruit for $125/hour. You just gotta pay me the right amount and I'm there.
|
Hope Musk is able to take over Twitter but I doubt it. We need less political speech suppression on that platform. Too many examples of "misinformation" later turning out to be entirely legitimate discourse.
|
I don't know if you've been on twitter in the past few years but the last thing the platform needs is less moderation. Its already the biggest pit of hate on the internet and letting it run wild is going to make things even worse.
|
Northern Ireland27015 Posts
On April 15 2022 22:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Hope Musk is able to take over Twitter but I doubt it. We need less political speech suppression on that platform. Too many examples of "misinformation" later turning out to be entirely legitimate discourse.
He’s an absolute twat with a god complex so I’d rather not see that happen.
Twitter, Facebook et al have done IMO a poor job in implementing consistently implemented moderation, no arguments from me there. Albeit it’s quite a tricky task.
On the flip side we’ve got a giant stack of evidence that no oversight and ‘in the marketplace of ideas the good ideas will win out’ just doesn’t happen.
|
On April 15 2022 23:30 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know if you've been on twitter in the past few years but the last thing the platform needs is less moderation. Its already the biggest pit of hate on the internet and letting it run wild is going to make things even worse.
Notice I said political speech suppression, not content moderation. That's a distinction many don't want to make, but it's an important one. Twitter should get its dirty hands out of the former category.
@Wombat, problem is that no one should be in the business of removing ideas from the discourse because they aren't the "good" ones.
|
United States44121 Posts
On April 15 2022 23:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2022 23:30 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know if you've been on twitter in the past few years but the last thing the platform needs is less moderation. Its already the biggest pit of hate on the internet and letting it run wild is going to make things even worse. Notice I said political speech suppression, not content moderation. That's a distinction many don't want to make, but it's an important one. Twitter should get its dirty hands out of the former category. @Wombat, problem is that no one should be in the business of removing ideas from the discourse because they aren't the "good" ones.
People can make anything political. All speech is political speech to someone. Being in a same sex relationship is a political statement to a lot of people for example.
|
You seem to have a lot of misplaced confidence about the ability to discern between the two without bias.
But just to satisfy the people in the back are you basically saying that you think that if elon buys twitter he will unban trump and let him post all the treasonous statements he wants no matter how many people die from it?
|
Reminder that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You're free to express that you think the local flying squirrels in your area should be inducted into the KKK, but don't be surprised when you get your ass lumberjack-tossed the fuck out of that space afterward.
How many arguments did we have to have about cakes to establish that private businesses should have the ability to do anything they want? But now Twitter is engaging in suppression of free speech. I didn't know Twitter was a government fixture. Last I checked, it was a (shitty) private business that can make decisions about what it will allow in its venue.
And let's not act like Musk wants in just to right some political wrongs, the dude is a megalomaniacal billionaire, and accruing more capitalism victory points like this is the only way you can approach feeling something anymore.
|
On April 16 2022 00:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2022 23:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 15 2022 23:30 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know if you've been on twitter in the past few years but the last thing the platform needs is less moderation. Its already the biggest pit of hate on the internet and letting it run wild is going to make things even worse. Notice I said political speech suppression, not content moderation. That's a distinction many don't want to make, but it's an important one. Twitter should get its dirty hands out of the former category. @Wombat, problem is that no one should be in the business of removing ideas from the discourse because they aren't the "good" ones. People can make anything political. All speech is political speech to someone. Being in a same sex relationship is a political statement to a lot of people for example.
Nothing can be political without first being personal to someone. If it didn't matter to certain people it would/could never enter the political sphere. Who makes certain things political and why is the only question that's left. The framing of "they're making it political when it doesn't need to be" is baseless. Who is it political to, and why? Who is it personal for, and why?
I digress a little bit, but I agree. What does "content moderation" look like as opposed to taking a political stance, when all the content on the platform is political from one slant or another? The issue is not that they're being political, it's that they don't like the political stance being taken.
My complaints regarding Fox News do not consist of them being political. My complaints are that they are a vacuum-sealed propaganda machine that encourages their viewers to be angry and miserable and to inflict those feelings on others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
