|
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 |
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On May 11 2022 07:17 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 06:32 Erasme wrote:On May 11 2022 06:15 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 06:00 Erasme wrote:
Funny how even with two videos you coudln't justify your comments
But hey, i've come to expect this kind of news from republicans. "KRAKEN IS COMING" into absolutly nothing of value. "two governors call for infanticide!!" into "we should let the mothers be informed of their choices by their physicians and then make their own decision"
I didn't even bother fact checking it, just taking your videos at face value show that you're just putting w.e you want into their mouths.
Maybe you can pull a MTG and recant now that you've recalled whats actually in those clips ? You're just making conclusory statements without responding to what I actually said. With a dash of "January 6th" and "Marjorie Taylor Greene" thrown in, because thats relevant i guess. Hey, that was an olive branch as that moment probably was one of the few times she told the truth. You said they're talking about legalizing infanticide, which is your big shtick. I asked you to provid me a timestamp with infanticide. You failed to do that. Now i'm calling you dishonest for posting links with a shitty headline to prove your point, when clearly they don't. I think that's fair. Yes when I say I'm linking tweets for the video only, you should definitely turn around and say I linked them for something other than the video. Btw people don't need to use the word infanticide to talk about infanticide.
Well people who care about the meaning of words might.
When my family decided not to give consent to resuscitation in the case of my dementia-ridden grandfather, we weren’t murderers in that instance.
In the case of those linked videos it seems in a similar vein, not let’s actively kill newborns, but let’s withdraw medical attempts to artificially sustain life in a scenario where only those attempts can sustain it.
What ambiguity exists could be in what constitutes ‘deformed’ but I would imagine could be pretty easily cleared up.
If, in the face of said follow up someone still outright says it’s sweet to murder newborn babies for whatever reason, well then they’re a monster. I like to think the entirety of this thread would judge them so.
|
On May 11 2022 06:23 Sermokala wrote:
Congratulations drone.
I would like to hear one justification for a lack of exceptions for abortions when the pregnancy is no longer viable. When the law of your jurisdiction says that the woman should die or they will be charged with murder. I don't understand how anyone can have a conversation about abortion without having some sort of viability waiver.
I'm against abortions myself but to condemn women to die or face felony jail time is inarguably evil.
Even banning abortions entirely with a viability waiver is evil. You are either expecting those of means being able to travel to get an abortion, defeating the purpose of the law by making it just an extra burden for women, or you are going to restrict peoples travel over state lines as you demand the common folk to turn each other in like we are in the communist hell scape the right insists democrats want.
There is no argument for banning abortions, or allowing the states to ban abortions, that isn't derived from some insane worse than sharia law zealotry. Isis allows birth control and abortions even.
At that point wouldn't they be able to claim self defense?
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban
Link
“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times.
He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.”
He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’
I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway.
It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time?
This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does.
|
On May 11 2022 07:17 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 06:32 Erasme wrote:On May 11 2022 06:15 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 06:00 Erasme wrote:
Funny how even with two videos you coudln't justify your comments
But hey, i've come to expect this kind of news from republicans. "KRAKEN IS COMING" into absolutly nothing of value. "two governors call for infanticide!!" into "we should let the mothers be informed of their choices by their physicians and then make their own decision"
I didn't even bother fact checking it, just taking your videos at face value show that you're just putting w.e you want into their mouths.
Maybe you can pull a MTG and recant now that you've recalled whats actually in those clips ? You're just making conclusory statements without responding to what I actually said. With a dash of "January 6th" and "Marjorie Taylor Greene" thrown in, because thats relevant i guess. Hey, that was an olive branch as that moment probably was one of the few times she told the truth. You said they're talking about legalizing infanticide, which is your big shtick. I asked you to provid me a timestamp with infanticide. You failed to do that. Now i'm calling you dishonest for posting links with a shitty headline to prove your point, when clearly they don't. I think that's fair. Yes when I say I'm linking tweets for the video only, you should definitely turn around and say I linked them for something other than the video. Btw people don't need to use the word infanticide to talk about infanticide.
What ?
The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses.
You replied to this with the second quote and the two videos. Note that I'm not talking about the tweets themselves.
Not sure I would bet on that proposition. For example there is that former Virginia governor's interview where he explicitly contemplates infanticide.
I then asked you the timestamp when either of those men "explicitly contemplates infanticide" and you couldn't, still can't. So I am calling you dishonest for trying to demonize those two men (and by extension the pro-choice movement), and ask you kindly to not link 30sec soundbites that don't even support your point.
Musk is right though, Trump would generate outrage and twitter can cash in on that easily.
|
On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does.
This is a brutally dumb take by Musk. Trump abused and ignored the ToS over and over again, and especially as a private citizen he doesn't deserve to have the rules waived in his favor. Maybe it's good for business though >.>
|
The TOS are very likely to change if you take musk at face value. He wants more "free speech" so less restrictions. So I think Trump will simply not break the TOS anymore, not because he's a changed man, but because his behaviour won't break them.
|
On May 11 2022 09:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does. This is a brutally dumb take by Musk. Trump abused and ignored the ToS over and over again, and especially as a private citizen he doesn't deserve to have the rules waived in his favor. Maybe it's good for business though >.>
Oh boy, Twitter is going to be an even bigger cesspit before Trump got booted.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:
So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban
“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times.
He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.”
Huh. An actually sensible decision and rationale for once. Hopefully it actually happens.
|
On May 11 2022 09:18 Erasme wrote:
The TOS are very likely to change if you take musk at face value. He wants more "free speech" so less restrictions. So I think Trump will simply not break the TOS anymore, not because he's a changed man, but because his behaviour won't break them.
I bet that Musk eventually draws the line somewhere. It's inevitable. If not current Republican disinformation, then perhaps racial slurs or death threats. And wherever the new line is drawn, the conservatives will continue to cross it, get themselves banned, and cry foul.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On May 11 2022 09:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:
So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban
“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times.
He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” Huh. An actually sensible decision and rationale for once. Hopefully it actually happens.
In what sense?
If Musk wants to make Twitter a free speech free for all, then sure go do that. His brief statement doesn’t make much sense when the totality of it is joined together.
If banning Trump doesn’t deny him a voice, then reinstating him doesn’t solve a problem of platforming.
If alienating a large part of the country is a concern, then free speech on the platform is dependent on the wider proclivities of the user base, and not any consistent ToS.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On May 11 2022 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 09:18 Erasme wrote:
The TOS are very likely to change if you take musk at face value. He wants more "free speech" so less restrictions. So I think Trump will simply not break the TOS anymore, not because he's a changed man, but because his behaviour won't break them. I bet that Musk eventually draws the line somewhere. It's inevitable. If not current Republican disinformation, then perhaps racial slurs or death threats. And wherever the new line is drawn, the conservatives will continue to cross it, get themselves banned, and cry foul.
100%
‘Why didn’t Daddy Elon let me abuse everyone?’
It’s an odd takeover to me for that reason. Musk enjoys a strange, borderline unique rarified status among all these billionaire types where Joe Everyday thinks he’s some cool innovative genius, and not one of those pesky elites.
A few missteps in his custodianship of Twitter and he’s going to end up with Bill Gates as part of some insidious NWO
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 11 2022 10:24 WombaT wrote:
His brief statement doesn’t make much sense when the totality of it is joined together.
Sure it does: Trump got banned in the heat of the moment of Jan 6th, he found other avenues to speak, and it's certainly not looked upon highly by his supporters. We lose a lot of the day-to-day quips of Trump on Twitter but he's as relevant as he's ever been in the larger sense.
I think it's more so that you disagree with the sentiment and think that censoring Trump off of Twitter is justified, which is fine but I don't see why it's hard to follow the logic of the statement. In a similar light, I don't think highly of Musk in general (as most people around here could probably gather) and don't really care for or think that the larger "free speech Twitter" is a good idea. But personally, I tend to agree that the circumstances of the Trump ban were politically motivated and largely not in the best interest of a platform whose only real appeal is that important people make direct comments on there.
|
On May 11 2022 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 09:18 Erasme wrote:
The TOS are very likely to change if you take musk at face value. He wants more "free speech" so less restrictions. So I think Trump will simply not break the TOS anymore, not because he's a changed man, but because his behaviour won't break them. I bet that Musk eventually draws the line somewhere. It's inevitable. If not current Republican disinformation, then perhaps racial slurs or death threats. And wherever the new line is drawn, the conservatives will continue to cross it, get themselves banned, and cry foul.
Death threats are illegal, so that's a good line to draw.
Note that plenty of people on the left also use death threats online, so that would have to be banned as well.
Racial slurs are unsavory but aren't illegal, just hateful. Unfortunately the nature of hate speech is people will always find new ways of expressing hate.
There's also the question of should people be allowed to express hate on a public online forum. Clearly, Musk thinks expressing hate is part of free speech.
|
On May 11 2022 10:44 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 09:18 Erasme wrote:
The TOS are very likely to change if you take musk at face value. He wants more "free speech" so less restrictions. So I think Trump will simply not break the TOS anymore, not because he's a changed man, but because his behaviour won't break them. I bet that Musk eventually draws the line somewhere. It's inevitable. If not current Republican disinformation, then perhaps racial slurs or death threats. And wherever the new line is drawn, the conservatives will continue to cross it, get themselves banned, and cry foul. Death threats are illegal, so that's a good line to draw. Note that plenty of people on the left also use death threats online, so that would have to be banned as well. Racial slurs are unsavory but aren't illegal, just hateful. Unfortunately the nature of hate speech is people will always find new ways of expressing hate. There's also the question of should people be allowed to express hate on a public online forum. Clearly, Musk thinks expressing hate is part of free speech.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Musk may even go so far as to allow all forms of speech that aren't explicitly illegal, but he'll still even be demonized for rightly banning people who hurl death threats. It's the nature of the victim complex, and he'll be pegged as the worst label ever... a liberal.
|
On May 11 2022 07:31 Dan HH wrote:Congrats Drone, all the best to you and your family! Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 05:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 04:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 04:35 Erasme wrote:On May 11 2022 03:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 02:08 WombaT wrote:On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. How is the judiciary not doing that in this particular example? Are we going to see past overreaches of the branch expunged en masse? Considering that is the principle at play here? Or will we see Roe vs Wade specifically overturned, by the movement in the composition of the Supreme Court due to nominations by a party whose constituency wants an end to abortion? It strikes me as mightily convenient that the sole ruling on the chopping block under the auspices of judicial overreach happens to be this thing loads of people want to happenZ It's different because by overturning Roe, the SC is not mandating that abortion be legal or illegal (as Roe did). It's simply being left up to the legislative branch, where new laws are debated and created. As for the other rights that the SC has created, like interracial marriage and contraception, I think the SC will basically carve out a somewhat arbitrary exception for abortion and leave those other cases in place. Thus why Alito's opinion explicitly carves those other cases out, even though his reasoning might otherwise extend to them. On May 11 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses. Not sure I would bet on that proposition. For example there is that former Virginia governor's interview where he explicitly contemplates infanticide. Linking these tweets just for the video: ROFL Are you betting on nobody actually clicking your videos ? They both said the same thing, that this should be left to the mother and the father and maybe the physicians. What an absolute clown world. Just point me where any of them said or contemplated infanticide. And as you're a republican, I want the word "infanticide" since you made that point. Not any other word. Sounds to me like northam was including babies with deformities in his description. He was alluding to ending the baby's life after birth, which is infanticide. Its probably best to not get your facts from facebook memes. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion-idUSKBN27D2HL Funny how the fact checkers had to rely on northam's spokesperson's comment that backpedaled on what he actually said: "he was referring to a 'extremely rare case' of a nonviable pregnancy." Nonviable pregnancies were explicitly a subset of what northam was talking about. Also funny that the actual bill northam was talking about was much, much broader than just "severe deformities or nonviable fetuses" (as stated in the totally unbiased fact check). I really don't like piling in on you when you're already getting so many aggressive replies, but I gotta point something out. I can see how one could uncharitably interpret "severe deformities" (the other part of the set) as something cosmetic rather than life-threatening in that context but there's no point getting into that. Take a step back and re-read the post you replied to with that link. The only acceptable example there would have been someone who wore that belief on their sleeve, never someone who at most may have misspoke. Some days ago when people were talking about the Texas GOP debate on capital punishment for women who get abortions you dismissed the talking point as unfair because it's just a few state legislators of little consequence who won't be able to pass the law, but here's the thing, those state legislators repeatedly, unapologetically and unequivocally made those statements. So that is the absolute minimum bar that you yourself have to clear in the other direction.
Well the kwark post I responded to asserted that (1) abortion of end stage fetuses never happens, and (2) infanticide never happens. I cited the two videos as evidence that those two things do sometimes happen. Though I'm guessing there's probably more clear evidence available that in abortion clinics around the country, some things happen that people don't want to admit.
And as mentioned I don't think there's a comparison to my previous argument re the random republican legislators. There I was saying it's unlikely the law will be passed, whereas with the northam/ryan videos I was saying that certain things (very late term abortions and infanticide) are already happening.
On May 11 2022 08:59 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 07:17 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 06:32 Erasme wrote:On May 11 2022 06:15 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 06:00 Erasme wrote:
Funny how even with two videos you coudln't justify your comments
But hey, i've come to expect this kind of news from republicans. "KRAKEN IS COMING" into absolutly nothing of value. "two governors call for infanticide!!" into "we should let the mothers be informed of their choices by their physicians and then make their own decision"
I didn't even bother fact checking it, just taking your videos at face value show that you're just putting w.e you want into their mouths.
Maybe you can pull a MTG and recant now that you've recalled whats actually in those clips ? You're just making conclusory statements without responding to what I actually said. With a dash of "January 6th" and "Marjorie Taylor Greene" thrown in, because thats relevant i guess. Hey, that was an olive branch as that moment probably was one of the few times she told the truth. You said they're talking about legalizing infanticide, which is your big shtick. I asked you to provid me a timestamp with infanticide. You failed to do that. Now i'm calling you dishonest for posting links with a shitty headline to prove your point, when clearly they don't. I think that's fair. Yes when I say I'm linking tweets for the video only, you should definitely turn around and say I linked them for something other than the video. Btw people don't need to use the word infanticide to talk about infanticide. What ? Show nested quote +The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses. You replied to this with the second quote and the two videos. Note that I'm not talking about the tweets themselves. Show nested quote +
Not sure I would bet on that proposition. For example there is that former Virginia governor's interview where he explicitly contemplates infanticide.
I then asked you the timestamp when either of those men "explicitly contemplates infanticide" and you couldn't, still can't. So I am calling you dishonest for trying to demonize those two men (and by extension the pro-choice movement), and ask you kindly to not link 30sec soundbites that don't even support your point. Musk is right though, Trump would generate outrage and twitter can cash in on that easily.
Looks like I should have seen implicitly rather than explicitly there. Elsewhere I said "alluded to." Point is northam was talking about actions taken after birth.
|
On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does.
Appears Musk was making the straightforward point that attempts at speech suppression are counterproductive. Take Hunter's laptop as an example. You all heard about it loud and clear, even though Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of it on their platforms. That's because the attempts at suppression merely drew more attention towards what they were trying to suppress.
|
|
|
On May 11 2022 06:23 Sermokala wrote:
Congratulations drone.
I would like to hear one justification for a lack of exceptions for abortions when the pregnancy is no longer viable. When the law of your jurisdiction says that the woman should die or they will be charged with murder. I don't understand how anyone can have a conversation about abortion without having some sort of viability waiver.
I'm against abortions myself but to condemn women to die or face felony jail time is inarguably evil.
Even banning abortions entirely with a viability waiver is evil. You are either expecting those of means being able to travel to get an abortion, defeating the purpose of the law by making it just an extra burden for women, or you are going to restrict peoples travel over state lines as you demand the common folk to turn each other in like we are in the communist hell scape the right insists democrats want.
There is no argument for banning abortions, or allowing the states to ban abortions, that isn't derived from some insane worse than sharia law zealotry. Isis allows birth control and abortions even.
Totally agree, banning abortion in the case of serious medical condition is just insane. Even if you can set aside all the "moral" argument (which you cannot), if the mother dies, the foetus die with the mother, simple as that. I would like to see the "pro-life" people present the argument justifying this point.
Also, banning abortion in the case of rape? The child will be the daily reminder of the ordeal the victim had, for the rest of her life. How can that possibly be a good thing is really beyond me. If you have any argument for this, please do share, so that I can learn something. (but I bet you cannot).
While I believe one should not decide to abortion lightly, total ban of abortion irrespective of condition is something that is very difficult to understand the rationale of. It put a huge risk for all the women with child bearing potential. If you have a love one who fit in this group (people with child bearing potential), you should think twice before supporting anything remotely close to this legislation.
|
On May 11 2022 10:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 10:24 WombaT wrote:
His brief statement doesn’t make much sense when the totality of it is joined together. Sure it does: Trump got banned in the heat of the moment of Jan 6th, he found other avenues to speak, and it's certainly not looked upon highly by his supporters. We lose a lot of the day-to-day quips of Trump on Twitter but he's as relevant as he's ever been in the larger sense. I think it's more so that you disagree with the sentiment and think that censoring Trump off of Twitter is justified, which is fine but I don't see why it's hard to follow the logic of the statement. In a similar light, I don't think highly of Musk in general (as most people around here could probably gather) and don't really care for or think that the larger "free speech Twitter" is a good idea. But personally, I tend to agree that the circumstances of the Trump ban were politically motivated and largely not in the best interest of a platform whose only real appeal is that important people make direct comments on there.
He broke ToS constantly, something he agreed to follow for use of the platform. If he wasn't the president, he would have gotten the boot a long time ago. Tons of people get banned from twitter for far, far less than Trump did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
