|
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 19 2026 02:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 01:37 oBlade wrote: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. 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)?
People who hate the USA and want to blow up parts of it can do whatever they want on the internet as long as they stay outside the US, and for their sake as long as they stay outside the reach of extraterritorial US statutes and the IC. But good luck if they break US criminal law.
The point you're trying to make is if we screen people, bad people will hide more, basically? Yet we check ID and passports even though someone might have a fake identity. Should we stop using passports because it just makes bad actors hide more? No. Should we screen social media more? Hard to say that floating the idea of "Maybe" is beyond the pale irrational. The IC might already be on top of the worst actors in the shadows without us laymen knowing about it. In which case screening revolutionary communist noisemakers coming as tourists could have limited benefits. On the other hand there's cases of arbitrary screening already so a system that is always transparent and never capricious would be better.
On March 19 2026 02:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 02:45 oBlade wrote:On March 19 2026 02:26 KwarK wrote: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. 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.
"Hey Spot, do you want to go for a WALK?"
a) Woof!
b) A question asked to a non sentient thing is just an utterance, a statement. Your question implies an expectation of a response in a way that I can't talk. Your leash is bad, and so are you.
?
|
This is a pretty good look at "Conscientious Objectors".
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7132303
Mike Prysner is the executive director of the Center on Conscience & War, which works with U.S. soldiers seeking conscience exemptions. Prysner says the organization has seen a massive spike in calls as the U.S.-Israel war against Iran intensifies.
If you can't see it due to country restrictions you can probably view it on youtube.com
It is kinda sad CBC turned off the comments section for this video.
its nice to see National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett always looking out for the little guy.
“The fact is that the U.S. economy is fundamentally sound and that if it were to be extended, it wouldn’t really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all,” Hassett told CNBC’s Becky Quick on “Squawk Box.”
“It would hurt consumers and we’d have to think about if that continued what we would have to do about that,” he continued. “But that’s the like, really the last of our concerns right now because we’re very confident that this thing is going ahead of schedule.”
So its time to "pay attention to outcomes". If things are "ahead of schedule" as Hassett tells us then this war/excursion should end in less than 35 days. It started February 28th. The clock is ticking.
|
On March 19 2026 01:59 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 22:12 Introvert wrote:On March 18 2026 17:23 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 18 2026 15:03 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote:
I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselvesIt's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles. No kidding, that's my point. There's freedom of speech. There's internet anonymity. They are separate things. In case you'd forgotten, YOU are the one citing it as an anonymity issue. My analogy is showing that it isn't, because -crime- isn't what you want to protect with anonymity, it's -freedom of speech-. You're coming in after my car analogy and saying "Well if the youtube account you posted it to was anonymous and you had covered your face, then the government wouldn't figure out it was you and couldn't come after you for shitting on a cop car. Anyone in the UK who wants to shit on a cop car had better do it anonymously, or they might suffer consequences." No kidding. What you SHOULD be arguing is the legality of 'shitting on a cop car', or whether or not count dankula's comments constituted a crime, but instead you seem to be arguing that if nobody knew who he was he wouldn't have been charged. And again, I think that's a conversation worth having. Personally, as I mentioned, I could go either way with it - if history had left him un-charged and un-fined, I would consider that acceptable. I also consider him having been fined what seems like a minimal sum to be fair enough, considering its hate-crime adjacency. No great injustice has been dealt here, in my opinion. I've definitely heard racier stuff on discord or teamspeak over the years, and while I'm glad those people haven't been fined or charged for anything, they also were voicing their shitty takes to an audience of single digits, not a youtube channel of however many thousands he had at the time. 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.
I guess even if it was just "crass antisemitism" I still don't think it should carry criminal penalties. I prefer the American standard the Supreme Court has endorsed in recent decades: direct incitement and libel.
Sure, because I'm not 13 years old I don't find edgy jokes from people who use names like "Count Dankula" to be very funny (not that I did but I know those that did) but I have to ask who is deciding that?
On March 19 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 01:28 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2026 00:09 Billyboy wrote: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. 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.
Putting what I said before a different way, who is the one holding people "accountable" and who is deciding "truth"? To me anonimity is *more important* when there is a risk of totalitarianism then when there isn’t. Legal sanction and social sanction are not the same. Bad people get to use the tools too. It just cannot be the position of the modern left that if, say, everyone was publicly identifiable that Trump wouldn't be president, for example. People are really mean to each other even when everyone can see it. There are good and bad aspects to being anonymous, but idk to me the benefits heavily outweigh the drawbacks and the risks.
|
United States43758 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 02:41 Acrofales wrote:On March 19 2026 01:37 oBlade wrote: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. 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)? People who hate the USA and want to blow up parts of it can do whatever they want on the internet as long as they stay outside the US, and for their sake as long as they stay outside the reach of extraterritorial US statutes and the IC. But good luck if they break US criminal law. The point you're trying to make is if we screen people, bad people will hide more, basically? Yet we check ID and passports even though someone might have a fake identity. Should we stop using passports because it just makes bad actors hide more? No. Should we screen social media more? Hard to say that floating the idea of "Maybe" is beyond the pale irrational. The IC might already be on top of the worst actors in the shadows without us laymen knowing about it. In which case screening revolutionary communist noisemakers coming as tourists could have limited benefits. On the other hand there's cases of arbitrary screening already so a system that is always transparent and never capricious would be better. Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 02:53 KwarK wrote:On March 19 2026 02:45 oBlade wrote:On March 19 2026 02:26 KwarK wrote: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. 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. "Hey Spot, do you want to go for a WALK?" a) Woof! b) A question asked to a non sentient thing is just an utterance, a statement. Your question implies an expectation of a response in a way that I can't talk. Your leash is bad, and so are you. ?
Do you genuinely believe that dogs are considering how they’d like to spend their afternoon and constructing their thoughts on the matter into a response when their owner says “walkies!” while waving a leash? Are you some kind of idiot? Dogs aren’t having complex thoughts and expressing them in complex dog language which we can’t interpret beyond “woof”. They’re dogs.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's accept your batshit theory that dogs are capable of abstract thoughts to the point that you can ask them their opinions, albeit opinions delivered in a language we can't possibly interpret. Even if we accept the idiocy of your premise the dog is still not capable of abstract thought on the question of whether or not we should gas the Jews. Dogs have no understanding of monotheistic religions. It's still a statement, not a question, when asked of a dog.
|
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.
For all you know they already lifted your anonymity without telling you because you criticized Trump somewhere.
In Austria if the police does that or has you under surveillance for a determined period, they have to inform you and at least question you first.
Doxxing can be life threatening, especially when you don't know about it and find yourself in the wrong company at the moment it happens.
Sometimes the wrong company is your entire town. But they already did most likely so w/e lol.
|
On March 19 2026 03:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 01:59 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 18 2026 22:12 Introvert wrote:On March 18 2026 17:23 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 18 2026 15:03 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote:
I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselvesIt's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles. No kidding, that's my point. There's freedom of speech. There's internet anonymity. They are separate things. In case you'd forgotten, YOU are the one citing it as an anonymity issue. My analogy is showing that it isn't, because -crime- isn't what you want to protect with anonymity, it's -freedom of speech-. You're coming in after my car analogy and saying "Well if the youtube account you posted it to was anonymous and you had covered your face, then the government wouldn't figure out it was you and couldn't come after you for shitting on a cop car. Anyone in the UK who wants to shit on a cop car had better do it anonymously, or they might suffer consequences." No kidding. What you SHOULD be arguing is the legality of 'shitting on a cop car', or whether or not count dankula's comments constituted a crime, but instead you seem to be arguing that if nobody knew who he was he wouldn't have been charged. And again, I think that's a conversation worth having. Personally, as I mentioned, I could go either way with it - if history had left him un-charged and un-fined, I would consider that acceptable. I also consider him having been fined what seems like a minimal sum to be fair enough, considering its hate-crime adjacency. No great injustice has been dealt here, in my opinion. I've definitely heard racier stuff on discord or teamspeak over the years, and while I'm glad those people haven't been fined or charged for anything, they also were voicing their shitty takes to an audience of single digits, not a youtube channel of however many thousands he had at the time. 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. I guess even if it was just "crass antisemitism" I still don't think it should carry criminal penalties. I prefer the American standard the Supreme Court has endorsed in recent decades: direct incitement and libel. Sure, because I'm not 13 years old I don't find edgy jokes from people who use names like "Count Dankula" to be very funny (not that I did but I know those that did) but I have to ask who is deciding that? Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:On March 19 2026 01:28 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2026 00:09 Billyboy wrote: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. 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. Putting what I said before a different way, who is the one holding people "accountable" and who is deciding "truth"? To me anonimity is *more important* when there is a risk of totalitarianism then when there isn’t. Legal sanction and social sanction are not the same. Bad people get to use the tools too. It just cannot be the position of the modern left that if, say, everyone was publicly identifiable that Trump wouldn't be president, for example. People are really mean to each other even when everyone can see it. There are good and bad aspects to being anonymous, but idk to me the benefits heavily outweigh the drawbacks and the risks.
You have to trust institutions to have a functional government. Otherwise it leads you totalitarianism. If you read any of the old CIA documentation about how to over throw one, guess what one of the major goals are? You also need robust checks and balances on these institutions and massive transparency. You country is moving further away from these things and it is quite obviously pushing you towards not away from Totalitarianism.
I don't know enough about this particularly story to plant some serious flag on my position. But if my skimming from the thread is that some awful person did something awful to his girlfriend to get himself some fame and money. I don't feel particularly bad that they got a slap on the wrist. My hope would be that people were just not as awful as him, and that other people didn't think being awful was funny and cool but here we are. If he was arrested, beaten and tortured and left to rot that would obviously be extreme. They he had a tiny punishment for doing something awful is not a bad thing.
These types of stories however are just distractions from real problems to get people to fight about meaningless dumb crap. The big stuff, like who is paying who in the government for what? Why everyone in your congress, senate and every level of government gets extremely wealthy? How the richest country in the world, both in total wealth and GDP has the problems of developing nations. And so on.
I get you hate "liberals", but if you had to give up a child and it was going to be randomly placed with a family, would you rather it be in Norway or USA? Which has a better functioning government? Which has less money involved? Which people are more accountable? How come Norway has such a massive wealth fun with a bunch of crazy spending lefties and your right wing mecca just keeps beating deficit and debt records? And the right is objectively worse at balancing the budget, but people keep pretending they are better?
Your countries issue isn't the "radical left" (for one thing they barely exist in the US, hell your democrats are our conservatives) it is that your politicians, from the only two parties are both bought and paid for and you only want the other side held accountable. Your side is worse when it comes to this. Trump is a obvious criminal and openly wildly corrupt, yet worshipped by many. If you were actually worried about dictatorship you would be worried about him and how he only employees yes men and loyalty trump competency. Just look at that recent shoe "gift" where all his staff were wearing the same stupid shoes with almost none of them fitting because they were scared to upset their dear leader. It is kind of funny, but mostly scary because of the quality of person who holds the power. The terrifying part is what if some one competent starts abusing power in this way, from either side. There is very little history around one person holding tons of power and it working out well for anyone.
|
On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. 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?
Let me go on a bit of a tangent here.
A long time ago I was in Australia and I was amazed that they had a law against "antisocial behaviour" on the train. Examples being putting your feet up on the seats, not getting up for old ladies if you were young or playing loud music. If you did, and a plainclothes metro officer caught you were fined and thrown of the train.
Young me was amazed and a bit horrified. Older me really likes the idea.
We as a society have ways we would ideally want people to be behave. We expect some people to not behave that way, and accept it up to a point. If someone is an asshole and breaks those rules (which vary based on which society it is) they get punished, often by a fine.
It's like littering. We don't want litter on the street. It doesn't really hurt anyone if you litter but it looks bad. Many countries fine people who litter. Few go out of their way and spend resources to hunt them down but it's not uncommon for cops to be able to fine you for littering.
If there is someone standing on the street telling every passing women that they are a whore and suggesting lewd sexual acts with them that would bother me even more. In my mind they are an even bigger asshole than the person littering. Maybe there is some psychiatric problem that explains, but doesn't excuse it.
I'd like police to deal with this person even more than I would like them to ticket someone throwing their cigarette butt.
It's not the the act of littering, or antisocial behaviour, or saying offensive things that is the main thing. It's people being assholes within the norms of society, doing things that would upset people without valid cause.
And when society has put down rules for when it passes the point where we dislike it but accept it as something you are free to do and into something that could be considered illegal I would like the state to act upon it.
If it's speech or not is not that important to me. I don't see it as something sacred. It's the intent that matters. Burning a holy book just to piss of believers is being an asshole. Burning it as part of of a statement against organized religion or for free speech is another thing entirely.
In this case someone allegedly tried doing as a joke. Part of me can see how teaching a pug to do something offensive could be funny. In fact if done properly as a bit it could be hilarious (imagine if he had trained it to salute the nazi flag or any mention of Hitler and he brought it to a Nazi history museum).
But apparently it didn't come out that way. At the same time he must have know that this could be incredibly offensive to a lot of people. So he is an asshole.
Does comedy win over offensiveness?
Not in this case. Should it have? I don't know. But justice is not always right. From people getting parking tickets when they parked correctly to innocent people on death row. Sometimes justice doesn't get it right.
In this case you have an asshole straddling the line. Maybe he shouldn't have been fined. Maybe he should. To me it's certainly not worth losing sleep over.
Also. He named himself Count Dankula? It's so cringe it's worthy of a fine on it's own....
|
Northern Ireland26471 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:41 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +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?
I mean is it a joke or not?
As a parent myself, or considering the educator angle, I think that’s a bit different. Formative, impressionable minds and all that.
A stern talking to, or education about how and why such rhetoric is bad craic may swing a youngster, especially one you have frequent contact with and who respects you, or you have authority over.
Whereas Mr Dankula (I don’t believe he’s actually a member of the aristocracy) is an adult bloke. What I’d personally advocate for in the former context that might be effective isn’t necessarily applicable to his circumstances.
I’d have little issue with the peelers popping over and giving him a ticking off and an informal/formal warning. Of other options potentially on the table, just to pick some.
Arrest, a court date and eventually a fine to me is both excessive for this individual case (IMO), but it’s also taking the time of services that would be best employed doing something else.
|
"Dogs have no understanding of monotheistic religions" is going to live in my head rent-free for the foreseeable future.
|
United States43758 Posts
On March 19 2026 03:28 Vivax 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. For all you know they already lifted your anonymity without telling you because you criticized Trump somewhere. In Austria if the police does that or has you under surveillance for a determined period, they have to inform you and at least question you first. Doxxing can be life threatening, especially when you don't know about it and find yourself in the wrong company at the moment it happens. Sometimes the wrong company is your entire town.
There’s doxxing and then there’s stuff you do in public. Outing someone as gay based on their search history would be doxxing. Naming a police officer on film beating someone in the town square is not. There’s a trend recently of right wingers insisting that any attempt to identify ICE officers on camera abusing citizens is doxxing for example. As if there shouldn’t be not only an expectation of identification but a requirement of it for the purpose of accountability.
As a society we have pretty clearly defined public/social spheres and private spheres. Not only is there no expectation of anonymity in a public sphere such as speaking at a town hall, the creation of legions of lifelike bots has made anonymity contrary to the basic function of public spheres. You can’t dox someone in public.
That applies just as much online. Twitter is open to the public and anyone can see what everyone else says. It’s a town square. Someone speaking there is using their own voice and addressing the public at large, they should stand by their words. They shouldn’t say anything they wouldn’t say loudly in the pub. There are other online places that are gated, invite only, and not viewable by the public.
|
On March 19 2026 04:02 LightSpectra wrote:
"Dogs have no understanding of monotheistic religions" is going to live in my head rent-free for the foreseeable future.
They're eating the theologians
|
Northern Ireland26471 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote:On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. 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. 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: Show nested quote +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?
I mean I think we’re largely in agreement here.
I find with such ‘culture war’ nonsense conceding the point and then basically saying something like you and Kwark did is the 1-2 punch to employ, or certainly one of them.
1. Yeah I think that’s stupid too.
2. Here are some other, more worrying or more impactful things happening in the world that touch on the topic you’re worried about, what about them?
I will add the caveat that I’m talking about conceding things one might personally agree with the other party’s take on, but don’t want to give them the pleasure, for whatever reason.
By all means die on whatever hill you want to, but you gotta believe that’s a hill worth dying on kinda thing.
I personally thought the Dankula saga somewhat excessive in many domains, so I’m not gonna argue it. If someone does think it’s grand, I mean by all means.
One’s mileage may vary. I’ve found it reasonably effective without having to sacrifice my soul or whatever.
|
United States43758 Posts
On March 19 2026 04:24 WombaT wrote:
I personally thought the Dankula saga somewhat excessive in many domains, so I’m not gonna argue it. If someone does think it’s grand, I mean by all means.
We shouldn’t argue it because the information we’ve been given on it is both wholly deficient to judge the correctness of the court’s decision in this instance and has also been very heavily slanted.
The premise of the question is flawed. “A court, after hearing a complicated fact pattern presented and argued by trained advocates for the defence and prosecution, decided this. Here’s a 3 line summary delivered by a partisan idiot on the subject. Do you agree with their ruling? Yes or no.”
We weren’t in the court. We didn’t hear all the arguments. We don’t have to opine on every subject. Nobody is making us.
|
Canada11465 Posts
Much like how when Twitter published where all the accounts were from most of the Alberta "freedom" and separatist accounts were not even Canadian.
I don't like getting rid of anonymity on the internet, but I do think for public square spaces like Twitter knowing the country of origin (where it was created and where they are posting from, etc) is extremely important. Because while people had started suspecting it, once twitter made the change it was definitively proven that democracies were getting gaslit by foreign actors posing as movements within.
I don't really need to know the true name of user CanadianPATRIOT2000truenorth who is constantly posting about Alberta separatism and joining the US and red pill tips to pick up chicks... but it sure is helpful context to know the poster hails from India or Russia or wherever.
|
On March 18 2026 16:45 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. 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.
what you are actually saying here is that it's hard to have a discussion because you're not in an echo chamber and some people disagree with you. got it
|
On March 19 2026 04:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 03:28 Vivax 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. For all you know they already lifted your anonymity without telling you because you criticized Trump somewhere. In Austria if the police does that or has you under surveillance for a determined period, they have to inform you and at least question you first. Doxxing can be life threatening, especially when you don't know about it and find yourself in the wrong company at the moment it happens. Sometimes the wrong company is your entire town. There’s doxxing and then there’s stuff you do in public. Outing someone as gay based on their search history would be doxxing. Naming a police officer on film beating someone in the town square is not. There’s a trend recently of right wingers insisting that any attempt to identify ICE officers on camera abusing citizens is doxxing for example. As if there shouldn’t be not only an expectation of identification but a requirement of it for the purpose of accountability. As a society we have pretty clearly defined public/social spheres and private spheres. Not only is there no expectation of anonymity in a public sphere such as speaking at a town hall, the creation of legions of lifelike bots has made anonymity contrary to the basic function of public spheres. You can’t dox someone in public. That applies just as much online. Twitter is open to the public and anyone can see what everyone else says. It’s a town square. Someone speaking there is using their own voice and addressing the public at large, they should stand by their words. They shouldn’t say anything they wouldn’t say loudly in the pub. There are other online places that are gated, invite only, and not viewable by the public.
My registered twitter activity had like one post and a follow on an Austrian politician, then I deleted my account I think. Felt really uncomfortable posting there in like 21/22. Still wouldn't unless I had a business. Some platforms are prone to invite trouble.
Maybe there are tools I don't know of yet like cross-posting detectors or 'platform-spill' detectors that should be almost standard for the apps or platforms themselves. Just in case someone decides to use you as a matchstick for their benefit.
Those widowmakers spamming 'I need armor' to me in overwatch were kinda funny.
|
On March 19 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote:On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. 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. The fine itself was “pretty ridiculous” or a “bit daft,” but the police should drop by to “giv[e] him a ticking off and an informal/formal warning.” You’re cramming in a lot of nuance above state action and short of a fine, but perhaps that’s also what Drone meant and he’d like the cops to rebuke him with a formal warning.
|
On March 19 2026 03:20 Introvert wrote:
I guess even if it was just "crass antisemitism" I still don't think it should carry criminal penalties. I prefer the American standard the Supreme Court has endorsed in recent decades: direct incitement and libel.
Sure, because I'm not 13 years old I don't find edgy jokes from people who use names like "Count Dankula" to be very funny (not that I did but I know those that did) but I have to ask who is deciding that?
-truncated the quotes for brevity, hopefully you don't feel it takes away from what you're saying.-
Who is deciding that?
Let's assume we agree that free speech should not be absolute. If that's the case, -someone- has to decide what's a joke and what's crass antisemitism. Ideally there would be some overarching structure that 'polices' these things, that they're not heavyhanded or authoritarian about it, they enact it fairly for all parties*, and criticism/debate regarding this institution is allowed to flow freely.
In the case of sir dankula, is that not what we see? Dude got fined 800 bucks for toeing the line of antisemitism to an audience, and there's been plenty of criticism and debate about whether or not it was a case of impinging someone's free speech. That seems like a soft slap on the wrist and has led to plenty of debate (apparently) over whether or not that's where the line should be drawn. It certainly didn't seem to ruin Dankula either personally or professionally.
Assuming you're not a free speech absolutist, who do you think should have governance over speech?
*Caveat being I expect there's reasonable claim that the 'fairly for all parties' isn't necessarily fulfilled and there's probably fair debate in that regard. I wouldn't be surprised if there's evidence of someone saying "death to white men" or something in a youtube video to a few thousand people, and that person not having been fined / whatever.
|
Norway28780 Posts
On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. 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?
Wombat also stated that he thought it was stupid.
I think many posters argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs and I think this is negative. I believe the thread would be better if people did less of this. I think I stay clear of this because I've clearly expressed my opinion on many different issues and I think people know that I am significantly more critical of Trump's freedom of speech infringements than I am of count dankula being fined, even if I also think the latter was stupid. Meanwhile Introvert and Oblade generally tend to be a bit vague in their criticisms of Trump (not saying they're both always supportive) but much more explicit in their critique of 'the other', and with how difficult it can be to get a straight answer out of either, a hostile culture has developed over time.
I like baal but he's a bit old school and can be abrasive. 
|
Someone named Ramp Capital on twitter could also be referring to my mom's skydiving accident. I could be offended, but I can't prove it.
Gonna have to wait for the GDI Ion cannon to hit the village while they think of new ways to milk me.
Kinda fits into US pol too cause imo there's been something from the US influencing them. Something radical.
6 years of 'special operations' in your neighbourhood kinda destroys you mentally.
They also destroy themselves in the process, kinda. So w/e.
In case you're wondering where we are on the fascism meter globally. They get free sponsorships in other countries and on socials.
Even Zucks stuff can‘t hide that he‘s just as bad as the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
