|
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 March 18 2026 16:35 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
Did you also use an AI summary to read about this case? Nope I saw his case in the news years ago and started following him, he is funny. Show nested quote +The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted.[ Show nested quote +He claimed it was a joke for his girlfriend on a channel his girlfriend would not actually watch. So the intended audience was the broader internet. He made a prank to her girlfriend and put it in his youtube channel, he is a comedian making a comedic video. Show nested quote +I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do think that if you are producing content that is consistent with neo-nazi propaganda you should be at the very least fined for it. He wasn't making propaganda, he was making a joke, actually he was a communist, he has a massive hammer & sickle tattoo on his chest.
There is nothing funny about his "joke". No wit, no satire. So either you think it is funny to be as offensive as possible, which is super low effort and IQ. Or you think being mean to someone you care about is funny, and enjoy watching them be upset and suffer. Basically like a junior high bully constantly calling a kid fat or gay, wow what great humor.
There are plenty of actual funny offensive comics, but they have an actual message and intent behind there jokes. Guys like Carlin, pryor, Kinison, Chapple, Burr so on.
It is sad that the police just platformed this guy, and that so many people with a 12 year olds brain think that being mean and offensive is funny. He clearly did this just to get noticed and the sheeple came onn board once he was a "victim".
|
On March 18 2026 18:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 18:06 oBlade wrote:
prosecute someone for the direction a dog extends its paw in a video Based on the description we've been provided the video appears to be of a man repeatedly saying "gas the jews". The dog part might not be what got him.
By "repeatedly saying," you mean "asking a question to a canine?" Would you feel different if he just added "in a video game" at the end, perhaps?
On March 18 2026 19:44 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 16:35 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
Did you also use an AI summary to read about this case? Nope I saw his case in the news years ago and started following him, he is funny. The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted.[ He claimed it was a joke for his girlfriend on a channel his girlfriend would not actually watch. So the intended audience was the broader internet. He made a prank to her girlfriend and put it in his youtube channel, he is a comedian making a comedic video. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do think that if you are producing content that is consistent with neo-nazi propaganda you should be at the very least fined for it. He wasn't making propaganda, he was making a joke, actually he was a communist, he has a massive hammer & sickle tattoo on his chest. Agree to disagree. That video could've comfortably sat in a folder entitled "recruitment videos" in a neo-nazi's laptop; humour is a powerful way to radicalise people.
The Second KKK was literally brought down by humor.
A man named Stetson Kennedy (not those Kennedys) went undercover in the KKK, learned all their absurd code and bullshit rituals, and had them broadcast on the radio. Then after every 10 year old kid picks it up to make fun of it and is running around asking their friend "Hey KLbro do you want to come over for Klinner today we're having Klaghetti" suddenly the tough LARPing secret racists didn't think it was so cool to be in their secret organization of surplus Halloween ghost costumes anymore.
A neo-Nazi recruitment video would be a serious screed, without a heiling dog and without someone named Dankula.
|
On March 18 2026 22:19 Uldridge wrote:
@Introvert: how do you secure a fragile society? How do you keep it from splintering from within? How do you restrict what can and can't be done, especially now that being informed - however you may define that - is so easily done (through the internet or traveling etc.)? Genuine question, if you're willing to elaborate on that.
Is anonimity enough you think?
I'd say maybe the ideal is a place where you don't feel the *need* for it but have the option. Is American society "fragile" or would "rancourous" be a better word? What I don't get is how people who might argue for drug decriminalization or even legalization don't see how the arguments apply even better to speech, which is not as inherently destructive. Letting people speak and having a culture of letting people say what they want seems far more conducive to a strong society than having those who control the government decide what is too far. We have social judgements for that. If you use the state then you get what we have now but even worse. The stakes of evey election become even more important as your ability to express yourself suddenly hinges on winning election. It's hard to think of something more destabilizing, at least in the American context.
It's not just platitudes like "the best cure for bad speech is good speech" but it's that the act of, and ability to, speak is ofcrucial societal valve. Nevermind that trying to chase people around for, say, making their dog do a Nazi salute means your culture is probably already in trouble.
|
On March 18 2026 23:29 Introvert wrote:
What I don't get is how people who might argue for drug decriminalization or even legalization don't see how the arguments apply even better to speech, which is not as inherently destructive.
That might be an ok comparison if you're suggesting we have government-funded rehab camps for people who publicly adhere to fascist ideologies.
|
speech is not as destructive?
I have to fight to stop myself from posting an image of Hitler speaking at a rally.
The entirety of human history is one example after another of the destructive power of speech, ideas and expression.
|
It's powerful, obviously. But it's not destructive by itself. You can try reading the whole post and without removing words.
But you are right, I totally meant words don't mean anything after saying how important it was that we allow people to use them.
|
I love how we are being lectured on free speech by the supporters of the regime that has in the past year:
- deported students based on participating in protests
- had a guy in jail for 37 days for posting a meme about Trump
- detained numerous people at the airport for internet history critical of the regime
- tried to remove a late night TV host from air for jokes
- sued multiple news organizations, knowing they will settle the case even if it makes no sense
- arrested a journalist for covering a protest
- banned half the press core from WH for not calling the Gulf of Mexico something else
- enacted new rules for Pentagon press and kicked anyone who wouldn't sign them out
- just recently had FTC Chair threaten news organizations with withholding their licenses for bad Iran war coverage
They don't care about free speech, they just want to be able to say slurs and be obnoxious to others because they are shitty people.
Baal has not only completely mucked his "case" by somehow trying to make it about anonymity online when the video in question was posted by a public figure, he also absolutely lied saying the guy is a "communist" when the guy was a member of UKIP. Then he tried to somehow connect that to Assange and Manning and other whistleblowers who blew the whistle under their own names. Just completely incoherent and frankly stupid.
And of course, the resident "centrists" came out of hibernation to address their favorite bullshit grievances.
In theory, I believe US laws such as 1st amendment are a better approach to how people should be governed then what most EU countries have, in practice, it's a much different story.
|
On March 18 2026 23:53 Jankisa wrote:
I love how we are being lectured on free speech by the supporters of the regime that has in the past year:
- deported students based on participating in protests
- had a guy in jail for 37 days for posting a meme about Trump
- detained numerous people at the airport for internet history critical of the regime
- tried to remove a late night TV host from air for jokes
- sued multiple news organizations, knowing they will settle the case even if it makes no sense
- arrested a journalist for covering a protest
- banned half the press core from WH for not calling the Gulf of Mexico something else
- just recently had FTC Chair threaten news organizations with withholding their licenses for bad Iran war coverage
Don't forget child molester Donald Trump signed an executive order to indict people for burning the United States flag, even though the Supreme Court definitively ruled that flag burning is free speech at least as recently as 1990.
Also don't forget that the current position of Pam Bondi's DOJ is that filming ICE agents at all is inherently terroristic.
Clarification on "tried to remove a late night TV host from air for jokes" -- it wasn't just a boycott (which is entirely lawful and I will defend anyone's right to do so), the head of the FCC was explicitly threatening to pull their broadcasting license. Completely indefensible.
Extremely minor correction, the guy jailed for 37 days wasn't jailed by feds but local police. MAGA's guilty of not speaking out in defense of his free speech, though.
And just to add to the discussion, nobody's in favor of 100% free speech, we all have a line somewhere. Blackmail? Death threats? CSAM? I happen to think Holocaust denial and hate speech should be criminalized like it is in Germany. That doesn't mean I'm anti-free speech and people who disagree are pro-free speech, that just means the latter's line of what qualifies as "free speech" is in a slightly different place.
|
On March 18 2026 23:52 Introvert wrote:
It's powerful, obviously. But it's not destructive by itself. You can try reading the whole post and without removing words.
But you are right, I totally meant words don't mean anything after saying how important it was that we allow people to use them. certain speech is not destructive.
other speech is.
which is why freedom of speech should not be absolute, and why those who spread hate online want to hide behind anonymity.
|
On March 18 2026 23:58 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 23:53 Jankisa wrote:
I love how we are being lectured on free speech by the supporters of the regime that has in the past year:
- deported students based on participating in protests
- had a guy in jail for 37 days for posting a meme about Trump
- detained numerous people at the airport for internet history critical of the regime
- tried to remove a late night TV host from air for jokes
- sued multiple news organizations, knowing they will settle the case even if it makes no sense
- arrested a journalist for covering a protest
- banned half the press core from WH for not calling the Gulf of Mexico something else
- just recently had FTC Chair threaten news organizations with withholding their licenses for bad Iran war coverage Don't forget child molester Donald Trump signed an executive order to indict people for burning the United States flag, even though the Supreme Court definitively ruled that flag burning is free speech at least as recently as 1990. Also don't forget that the current position of Pam Bondi's DOJ is that filming ICE agents at all is inherently terroristic. Clarification on "tried to remove a late night TV host from air for jokes" -- it wasn't just a boycott (which is entirely lawful and I will defend anyone's right to do so), the head of the FCC was explicitly threatening their broadcasting license. Extremely minor correction, the guy jailed for 37 days wasn't jailed by feds but local police. MAGA's guilty of not speaking out in defense of his free speech, though. And just to add to the discussion, nobody's in favor of 100% free speech, we all have a line somewhere. Blackmail? Death threats? CSAM? I happen to think Holocaust denial and hate speech should be criminalized like it is in Germany. That doesn't mean I'm anti-free speech and people who disagree are pro-free speech, that just means the latter's line of what qualifies as "free speech" is in a slightly different place.
Well, sure, I can imagine what would have happened if this happened under Biden or Kamala and a completely chill meme got someone jailed.
I'm sure there would be at least 20 pages of our resident "centrists" circlejerking about it here, despite the fact that under Trump, they completely skipped over mentioning or commenting on it even when it was posted here.
But, when it comes to coming to defense of count fucking Dankula, a case from 2018, they immediately report for duty to spew their platitudes all over the thread.
|
On March 19 2026 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 23:52 Introvert wrote:
It's powerful, obviously. But it's not destructive by itself. You can try reading the whole post and without removing words.
But you are right, I totally meant words don't mean anything after saying how important it was that we allow people to use them. certain speech is not destructive. other speech is. which is why freedom of speech should not be absolute, and why those who spread hate online want to hide behind anonymity.
See this is where the philosophical difference is I suppose. Speech is powerful so I'm very skeptical of letting the government decide what speech is allowed. And it isn't absolute, not even in the US. But the example people were discussing, Nazi dog, seems like it should clearly fall inside the "allowed" category.
|
On March 18 2026 23:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 22:19 Uldridge wrote:
@Introvert: how do you secure a fragile society? How do you keep it from splintering from within? How do you restrict what can and can't be done, especially now that being informed - however you may define that - is so easily done (through the internet or traveling etc.)? Genuine question, if you're willing to elaborate on that.
Is anonimity enough you think? I'd say maybe the ideal is a place where you don't feel the *need* for it but have the option. Is American society "fragile" or would "rancourous" be a better word? What I don't get is how people who might argue for drug decriminalization or even legalization don't see how the arguments apply even better to speech, which is not as inherently destructive. Letting people speak and having a culture of letting people say what they want seems far more conducive to a strong society than having those who control the government decide what is too far. We have social judgements for that. If you use the state then you get what we have now but even worse. The stakes of evey election become even more important as your ability to express yourself suddenly hinges on winning election. It's hard to think of something more destabilizing, at least in the American context. It's not just platitudes like "the best cure for bad speech is good speech" but it's that the act of, and ability to, speak is ofcrucial societal valve. Nevermind that trying to chase people around for, say, making their dog do a Nazi salute means your culture is probably already in trouble.
I think personal accountability is an important part of free speech.
I also don’t see how it is possible to be a free speech supporter and Republican with the current admin. No one in the party can even remotely question anything Trump says or they are out. He has the FCC attack anything he feels is not positive coverage of anything he does. He has used the power of the government to cancel shows he thinks are mean to him.
This is by far the least free speech government in the democratic world since I’ve been alive.
|
On March 19 2026 00:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2026 23:52 Introvert wrote:
It's powerful, obviously. But it's not destructive by itself. You can try reading the whole post and without removing words.
But you are right, I totally meant words don't mean anything after saying how important it was that we allow people to use them. certain speech is not destructive. other speech is. which is why freedom of speech should not be absolute, and why those who spread hate online want to hide behind anonymity. See this is where the philosophical difference is I suppose. Speech is powerful so I'm very skeptical of letting the government decide what speech is allowed. And it isn't absolute, not even in the US. But the example people were discussing, Nazi dog, seems like it should clearly fall inside the "allowed" category.
I'll agree that it was an abuse of government power to fine Count Dankula under the UK's Communications Act 2003 if you agree that everything Jankisa and I just mentioned a few minutes ago are also abuses of government power.
Otherwise you don't believe in free speech, you just believe things you agree with should be free and things you disagree with shouldn't be free.
|
On March 19 2026 00:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2026 23:52 Introvert wrote:
It's powerful, obviously. But it's not destructive by itself. You can try reading the whole post and without removing words.
But you are right, I totally meant words don't mean anything after saying how important it was that we allow people to use them. certain speech is not destructive. other speech is. which is why freedom of speech should not be absolute, and why those who spread hate online want to hide behind anonymity. See this is where the philosophical difference is I suppose. Speech is powerful so I'm very skeptical of letting the government decide what speech is allowed. And it isn't absolute, not even in the US. But the example people were discussing, Nazi dog, seems like it should clearly fall inside the "allowed" category. What I don't get is how people who might argue for drug decriminalization or even legalization don't see how the arguments apply even better to speech, which is not as inherently destructive. Because they do get.
Some speech is not harmful and should be allowed, some drugs are not harmful and should be allowed.
Other speech is harmful and should not be allowed, other drugs are harmful and should not be allowed.
You won't find a lot of people in favor of legalizing marijuana to also be in favor of legalizing heroin.
|
On March 19 2026 00:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 00:07 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2026 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2026 23:52 Introvert wrote:
It's powerful, obviously. But it's not destructive by itself. You can try reading the whole post and without removing words.
But you are right, I totally meant words don't mean anything after saying how important it was that we allow people to use them. certain speech is not destructive. other speech is. which is why freedom of speech should not be absolute, and why those who spread hate online want to hide behind anonymity. See this is where the philosophical difference is I suppose. Speech is powerful so I'm very skeptical of letting the government decide what speech is allowed. And it isn't absolute, not even in the US. But the example people were discussing, Nazi dog, seems like it should clearly fall inside the "allowed" category. Show nested quote + What I don't get is how people who might argue for drug decriminalization or even legalization don't see how the arguments apply even better to speech, which is not as inherently destructive. Because they do get. Some speech is not harmful and should be allowed, some drugs are not harmful and should be allowed. Other speech is harmful and should not be allowed, other drugs are harmful and should not be allowed. You won't find a lot of people in favor of legalizing marijuana to also be in favor of legalizing heroin.
I’m in favour of legalizing and highly regulating heroin. Totally different rules than THC, because the risks are far greater and it does totally different things.
|
speaking of free speech, just remembered that this administration floated the idea of having people visting the US needing to provide their social media history to see if they should be allowed into the country. bbc
I'm sure you threw up a big fit around this clear and obvious invasion of free speech right?
|
On March 19 2026 00:09 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 23:29 Introvert wrote:On March 18 2026 22:19 Uldridge wrote:
@Introvert: how do you secure a fragile society? How do you keep it from splintering from within? How do you restrict what can and can't be done, especially now that being informed - however you may define that - is so easily done (through the internet or traveling etc.)? Genuine question, if you're willing to elaborate on that.
Is anonimity enough you think? I'd say maybe the ideal is a place where you don't feel the *need* for it but have the option. Is American society "fragile" or would "rancourous" be a better word? What I don't get is how people who might argue for drug decriminalization or even legalization don't see how the arguments apply even better to speech, which is not as inherently destructive. Letting people speak and having a culture of letting people say what they want seems far more conducive to a strong society than having those who control the government decide what is too far. We have social judgements for that. If you use the state then you get what we have now but even worse. The stakes of evey election become even more important as your ability to express yourself suddenly hinges on winning election. It's hard to think of something more destabilizing, at least in the American context. It's not just platitudes like "the best cure for bad speech is good speech" but it's that the act of, and ability to, speak is ofcrucial societal valve. Nevermind that trying to chase people around for, say, making their dog do a Nazi salute means your culture is probably already in trouble. I think personal accountability is an important part of free speech. I also don’t see how it is possible to be a free speech supporter and Republican with the current admin. No one in the party can even remotely question anything Trump says or they are out. He has the FCC attack anything he feels is not positive coverage of anything he does. He has used the power of the government to cancel shows he thinks are mean to him. This is by far the least free speech government in the democratic world since I’ve been alive.
There is a good argument for accountability, sure. It's not 100% one way but called back to the Revolutionary era because I think it's a good counter example.
I disagree with many things the Trump admin had done. The past few presidential administration's have tested the lines at different times, but this is again one of things I find so odd. If you believe a literal fascist in the White House surely anonymity becomes more important than ever! It's another reason I don't believe people who use that rhetoric actually believe it. Unless they are naive enough to think that once they are on power again they won't lose it.
On March 19 2026 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:speaking of free speech, just remembered that this administration floated the idea of having people visting the US needing to provide their social media history to see if they should be allowed into the country. bbcI'm sure you threw up a big fit around this clear and obvious invasion of free speech right?
The United States is under no obligation to allow any foreigner to stay and should be allowed to remove one for almost any reason. I view the two situations as sufficiently unlike each other. The polity who gets to decide who joins it.
|
I'd like to add to my previous post about suspending civil liberties in order to "crush the criminals". When a country is in its formative stages suspending civil liberties can on occasion be the correct path. The rebuttal to someone just glazing over the facts would probably be : "formative stages? Canada was 103 years old when Trudeau enacted the War Measures Act at 3AM!". In years Canada might be 103, however, it still was forming as a country. It didn't start making its own military decisions until 1917 of WW1. And, that was the exception, not the rule. Canada did not have its own constitution in 1970. Canada didn't even get its own flag until 1965 when the country was technically 98 years old.
In conclusion, Trudeau's suspension of civil rights was the proper move both morally and on a pragmatic level. This move decimated the FLQ and Quebecers loved him for it. In next election he captured 67 of Quebec's 75 seats and he crushed Rene Levesque, a genius level politician, in the 1980 referendum.
Ironically, Trudeau went on to build Canada's first constitution in 1983 making it more difficult to pull off the maneuvre he did on October 5, 1970.
In conclusion, sometimes the right thing to do is suspend civil liberties in order to quickly crush the criminals.
|
On March 19 2026 01:28 Introvert wrote:
I disagree with many things the Trump admin had done.
Is that a commitment to not vote for Republicans again so long as they continuously, unrepentantly violate people's free speech, or is free speech too low on your list of priorities for that to change anything?
On March 19 2026 01:28 Introvert wrote:If you believe a literal fascist in the White House surely anonymity becomes more important than ever! It's another reason I don't believe people who use that rhetoric actually believe it. Unless they are naive enough to think that once they are on power again they won't lose it.
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying to completely abolish Internet anonymity, unless I missed someone who did. The discussion is whether social media networks, specifically just them, should require some kind of real-world identification in order to post. You don't need to post on a social media network to share or access information over the Internet.
|
On March 19 2026 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:speaking of free speech, just remembered that this administration floated the idea of having people visting the US needing to provide their social media history to see if they should be allowed into the country. bbcI'm sure you threw up a big fit around this clear and obvious invasion of free speech right?
That sounds like a reasonably floated idea. If someone's entire social media history were hating the US and wanting to blow it or parts of it up, they should not be allowed by the US to enter the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
