EPTOn March 18 2026 23:07 oBlade wrote:
By "repeatedly saying," you mean "asking a question to a canine?"
By "repeatedly saying," you mean "asking a question to a canine?"
Dogs can’t talk.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5571
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
KwarK
United States43748 Posts
Dogs can’t talk. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2820 Posts
On March 18 2026 23:07 oBlade wrote: 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? 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. I sometimes struggle to understand you. So you do agree that humour is a powerful tool to change people's minds? | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2820 Posts
On March 19 2026 01:37 oBlade wrote: 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. So your point is that some types of free speech expression should be banned or have consequences? I find your stance confusing. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17381 Posts
Trump says the USA is "almost done" in Iran on the same day Hegseth says they're "just getting started." "Guys, break out the doublethink brainwashing machine!" Trump's presentation of economic metrics is Code S level doublethink.  | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9188 Posts
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 - 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. Literally zero values. You can make the same list about states rights, limited government, fiscal responsibility, muh constitution, ethics and anti-corruption, diplomacy and global leadership, etc. I don't know how these guys hope to be taken seriously again after throwing all their pretend principles in the trash can for Trump. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2820 Posts
On March 18 2026 16:45 baal wrote: Fucking thank you. It's so difficult to discuss in this forum where so many argue in bad faith and gaslights constantly it makes productive discourse impossible so tl.net has become this reddit-type echo chamber. It's probably too ingrained in the forum culture but bad faith should warrant warnings/bans, when I was a mod that was the only reason I banned people, extreme freedom of speech no matter how heated it got as far as people were arguing in good faith. I am unsure in what way I gaslit you by reading about the person you indicated had been sent to prison for having the wrong opinion. I am also not sure what the bad faith was on my end. I read the times article and the house of lords statement and provided my analysis and understanding on what I read. It feels, from my end, that it is you who is not holding up their side of the bargain. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2677 Posts
On March 18 2026 22:12 Introvert wrote: Freedom of speech and anonymity are clearly related when the latter is the only way to have the former, but you seem to view this is a legitimate "hate crime" so your definition is different. Anonymity has been a part of American speech and debate since the Revolutionary era. Lots of public debate was carried out by different men writing anonymously in newspapers. They even did it when there wasn't a legal threat (Publius and the Federalist Papers). Now of course the internet is much bigger and less curated but free speech and anonymity are very often linked. "view this as a legitimate hate crime" is a bit strong. I'm open to the possibility of someone posting a video saying 'gas the jews' as quite possibly being less a joke and more crass antisemitism. Defending it (as you've done in other posts) as a "nazi dog" would be appropriate if he was filmed through his livingroom window by a prying neighbour teaching his dog a nazi salute, and then prosecuted by his government for it. That's not what the story is. Instead, we saw a man performing an antisemetic joke to his dog and posting it publicly to his however many thousand (?) viewers on youtube. I'm not worried about his dog taking the message to heart. I'm also not terribly worried about the large portion of his audience that would see this as a joke. What I'm 'worried about' (read : What I see as reasonable grounds for considering it 'hate speech') is that it's pretty obviously antisemetic language, and that push towards the idea that jews aren't people is dangerous. I don't think that language is "Never ever ever", but I do think normalizing it is dangerous. This isn't a political message he sent. He wasn't participating in a political discussion and then cancelled because he suggested jews are lesser. He wasn't trying to engage internet anonymity as a path to protecting his right to free speech. He did a stupid and was fined for it, and almost certainly profited off it in the long term because the case isn't clear cut as a hate crime. I'm definitely not a free speech absolutist, and recognize that speech can be harmful and dangerous. Given that, you can expect that I'll draw the line somewhere, and clearly antisemetic joke publicly posted to many people is fine enough by me. If it was a screenshot of a DM between him and his girlfriend, I'm much less on board. It wasn't. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5958 Posts
On March 19 2026 01:46 EnDeR_ wrote: So your point is that some types of free speech expression should be banned or have consequences? I find your stance confusing. You know how if someone owns a house, and they can say whatever they want in it, and then they invite you to the house also, isn't it kind of hypocritical if you can't also say whatever you want because some things you say get you kicked out of the house? No, it's not hypocritical, it's just not your house. You have the same options with your own house. You may find your idea of my stance confusing if you have assumed I think 1st amendment protections for American citizens should apply to just everyone around the world even if those people harm or want to harm the US. I don't think that, because they shouldn't. The world does not have the unfettered right to go to the US or any other country. On March 19 2026 01:43 EnDeR_ wrote: I sometimes struggle to understand you. So you do agree that humour is a powerful tool to change people's minds? Yes, humor, like any speech, can change people's minds. Since "speech" has taken off from around the time of the Enlightenment, we have generally trended towards better ideas. No, we are not in danger of losing western civilization to videos of pugs that aren't even German shepherds doing sieg heils when prompted that we have no recourse against besides government punishment of speech. For example the problem in Nazi Germany was not that Germany failed to adequately ban Goebbels making fun of Jews. The problem was the Nazis had already banned making fun of themselves. Imagine a universe where you get Chaplin in German cinemas before the September Campaign and history would have been a bit quieter. | ||
|
dyhb
United States201 Posts
On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you?I think count dankula being fined was stupid. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26457 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23762 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote: So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you? I believe that if the penalty for a crime is a (basically flat) fine, then that law really only exists for those that can't afford it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43748 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:08 WombaT wrote: Wasn’t the dog doing a K-Pop salute anyway? Not sure what all the kerfuffle is I'm sure we'll eventually get there but we have to let the bad faith run its course. "He went to prison for his dog's gesture" "But he didn't go to prison" "He was arrested for his dog's gesture" "He was arrested for a video he made and put online" "That video was intended only for his girlfriend" "His girlfriend doesn't follow his channel and the video was posted to the public" "Okay, but the video is just of his dog" "The video is of him saying 'gas the Jews over and over'" "That was a conversation he was having with the dog" "Dogs can't talk" The entire description and framing of this issue by the people wanting to die on this hill is fundamentally dishonest. They're not interested in being honest. They're not interested in a sincere debate about the limits of free speech. They just want to feel persecuted because they read that in England you can't even gas the Jews anymore. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26457 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote: So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you? I mean it’s not just Drone, I believe I posted to that effect too. Me memory ain’t quite what it used to be. It seems a general springboard into other adjacent areas, I’d be curious as to the thoughts on some posters on this very specific case and the specific censure handed out. Perhaps a poll is in order Anyway, yeah, I felt it at the time, I feel it perhaps more strongly now. It feels like some of those who see the wisdom in some kind of censure for hate speech and what have you in various domains kinda can get to a point where they just can’t concede a singular thing is daft. As if maintaining an overall position but conceding that Count Bloody Dankula’s situation was a bit daft, is somehow weakening a hand or something. Which then ends up with folks going ‘oh this is lunacy’ and getting drawn right into the very pipelines folks like me would rather people stay clear of. Granted I’m spitballing about how I recall this in my particular sphere, at the actual time and to some degree subsequently more in general rather than commenting on the dynamics of the thread. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2313 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote: So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you? I don't think opposing Count Dankula getting a fine is fringe hypocrisy, but you shouldn't misrepresent the conversation as it happened. Firstly, baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true. Secondly, this was said in response to the topic being about social media anonymity (Dankula making a joke on his public, monetized youtube channel is irrelevant to that) and using guns to resist authoritarianism (the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?). What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole. | ||
|
Billyboy
1579 Posts
On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think count dankula being fined was stupid. If the two people involved were students in the school you taught at, would you advocate for no consequences? What would you tell the parents of the girlfriend as the video of her dog and reaction went viral? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18246 Posts
On March 19 2026 01:37 oBlade wrote: 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. So should people who hate the USA and want to blow parts of it up be allowed to hide in anonymity on the internet (or should that right be reserved for neonazis only)? | ||
|
oBlade
United States5958 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:26 KwarK wrote: I'm sure we'll eventually get there but we have to let the bad faith run its course. "He went to prison for his dog's gesture" "But he didn't go to prison" "He was arrested for his dog's gesture" "He was arrested for a video he made and put online" "That video was intended only for his girlfriend" "His girlfriend doesn't follow his channel and the video was posted to the public" "Okay, but the video is just of his dog" "The video is of him saying 'gas the Jews over and over'" "That was a conversation he was having with the dog" "Dogs can't talk" The entire description and framing of this issue by the people wanting to die on this hill is fundamentally dishonest. They're not interested in being honest. They're not interested in a sincere debate about the limits of free speech. They just want to feel persecuted because they read that in England you can't even gas the Jews anymore. Oh god you really think "dogs can't talk" was a genius salient reply. The fact he's asking a question about "gas the jews" to a dog is how you know it's a fucking joke. Everyone knows dogs can't talk. Nobody has said he expected a verbal answer from the dog. That you believe the fact that dogs can't talk means you cannot make a video asking a question to a dog is asinine. You can look at a table even though it doesn't have eyes. Think. Unlike some people, he doesn't have to add "in a video game" at the end to cover up the fact that he's actually serious, because he isn't actually serious to begin with. Which is obvious. Because he's talking to a fucking dog. Besides which even actual far right and neo-Nazis don't run on "gas the Jews." Even the actual Nazis didn't run on "gas the Jews." They just did it without actually talking about it because it was too insane to get away with talking about. At worst is delete his video for taste and controversy reasons. | ||
|
Billyboy
1579 Posts
On March 19 2026 01:28 Introvert wrote: 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. 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. Truth and accountability is what beats fascism. Of course I want it. I want it to be out there who everyone is putting their money too and who they are supporting. Much like how when Twitter published where all the accounts were from most of the Alberta "freedom" and separatist accounts were not even Canadian. Anonymity is being abused by manipulators and bullies. Take the masks off everyone. Even the rich ones, and especially the rich ones that are abusing children. The internet is a public space. If we were talking about private conversations that would be a different topic. It is really easy to differentiate, not sure why we need to pretend like the rules can't be made different for different things. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43748 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:45 oBlade wrote: Oh god you really think "dogs can't talk" was a genius salient reply. The fact he's asking a question about "gas the jews" to a dog is how you know it's a fucking joke. Everyone knows dogs can't talk. Nobody has said he expected a verbal answer from the dog. That you believe the fact that dogs can't talk means you cannot make a video asking a question to a dog is asinine. You can look at a table even though it doesn't have eyes. Think. Unlike some people, he doesn't have to add "in a video game" at the end to cover up the fact that he's actually serious, because he isn't actually serious to begin with. Which is obvious. Because he's talking to a fucking dog. Besides which even actual far right and neo-Nazis don't run on "gas the Jews." Even the actual Nazis didn't run on "gas the Jews." They just did it without actually talking about it because it was too insane to get away with talking about. At worst is delete his video for taste and controversy reasons. A question asked to a non sentient thing is just an utterance, a statement. The word question implies an expectation of a response in a way that the word looking does not. Your comparison is bad, and so are you. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9188 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote: I mean it’s not just Drone, I believe I posted to that effect too. Me memory ain’t quite what it used to be. It seems a general springboard into other adjacent areas, I’d be curious as to the thoughts on some posters on this very specific case and the specific censure handed out. Perhaps a poll is in order Anyway, yeah, I felt it at the time, I feel it perhaps more strongly now. It feels like some of those who see the wisdom in some kind of censure for hate speech and what have you in various domains kinda can get to a point where they just can’t concede a singular thing is daft. As if maintaining an overall position but conceding that Count Bloody Dankula’s situation was a bit daft, is somehow weakening a hand or something. Which then ends up with folks going ‘oh this is lunacy’ and getting drawn right into the very pipelines folks like me would rather people stay clear of. Granted I’m spitballing about how I recall this in my particular sphere, at the actual time and to some degree subsequently more in general rather than commenting on the dynamics of the thread. On the surface, I'm leaning towards it being overreach, but the bait is not interesting enough for me to go into researching the details of the story beyond what I glanced in a few posts here. It's fascinating what fascinates the right-wing corner of the internet, I'm reminded of when BlackJack went mad over some Canadian teacher wearing prosthetic breasts. The leader of the country we're discussing in this thread removed 160 schoolgirls from the planet with a double missile strike just a few weeks ago, there weren't 7 pages of passionate outrage about that here, our passion is reserved for obscure youtubers maybe wrongly getting a fine a decade ago or for imagined future sexual assaults in bathrooms by trans people, those are the real problems for culture warriors. Kwark nailed it here: On March 18 2026 18:00 KwarK wrote: A bigger issue is how you somehow got so upset over a case that you clearly don't really know about in a country on the other side of the world. Someone fed you a narrative and got you worked up over a thing that didn't happen. Shouldn't you at least take a few minutes to work out who did that and what their motivations might be? | ||
| ||
