|
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 27 2026 16:51 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 14:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 02:25 Falling wrote:On March 27 2026 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote:
So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November.
The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old.
In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected.
I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there. I wouldn't care whether he is really left or a fascist. Blackwater merc itself is pretty disqualifying, with or without skull tattoo. Doesn't seem like Democrats need more purity tests? Or do they? I don't know specifically what he did for Blackwater, but seems a little classist to only support the people hiring the mercs. Be serious. Having a few red flags that he could be another Fetterman is not 'purity testing.' Is Fetterman the new Manchin? Aren't those undesirable, but necessary? So another Fetterman/Manchin would be a win? + Show Spoiler +You aren't making a clever point, reflecting old attacks against you back around. You are playing dumb games as these are very different contexts.
Who could have foreseen that a guy who refused to even consider apologizing for chasing down and holding an innocent Black jogger at gunpoint would occasionally align with Republicans...?
Whether something is a "purity test" or not isn't some objectively calculated metric. Is it?
|
Did you see it coming GH?
You usually have a link to your old posts, since this was all so obvious you must have caught it during the Primary when Fetterman won, or?
|
Canada11469 Posts
Welp. Clearly Sanders didn't. Nor the Pennsylvania Democrats. Nor the guys running the Republican attacks... unless that was some sort of reverse-psychology to get their guy in?
They all dumb or what?
edit.
Although, I think with that response you are effectively conceding that it was a bait and switch, so Fetterman is not another Machin. It's just you think they ought to have foreseen the Fetterman reversal.
|
Northern Ireland26494 Posts
On March 28 2026 01:51 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 14:36 WombaT wrote:On March 27 2026 09:22 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 27 2026 04:33 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 27 2026 04:06 WombaT wrote:On March 27 2026 02:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 26 2026 22:32 LightSpectra wrote:
It was Gen X and Millennials who grew up in a world where the far-right was still the fringe of politics, and the "just let them make fools of themselves, trying to ban them will only embolden them" seemed to be sensible advice from our parents that grew up in a world where the Nazis and Fascists seemed to be permanently vanquished.
So it turns out that was complete hogwash, regrettably. Society still has time to update our collective wisdom to something more evidence-based but it's not surprising a lot of people are resistant to such a thing. Millennial here (not by much tho) and I very much believed in my younger days that people's minds could be changed if convincing evidence could be provided. As a scientist, this felt like a self-evident truth. I sympathise with Baal's position in truth. I don't think he's being malicious, he just thinks people are better than they truly are and that's a nice sentiment. I mean it’s the intuitive position after all. And it still works, provided, to my understanding that an individual hasn’t formed some kind of reasonably strong emotional attachment to a belief, or wider belief system. It seems the current ecosystem, complex as it is does somewhat seem to rather bolt seemingly unrelated phenomena to particular belief systems. And in many cases that fusing is not reversible past a point. There should be no real reason that belief in the efficacy of certain vaccines etc should serve as a (reasonably) accurate gauge of someone’s wider political beliefs. But you’d have to be a lunatic to deny that was rather evident, specially in Covid times! There is also another option too, the brain effectively ends up deceiving itself. Cognitive dissonance in the real sense of the term. Someone does believe in x y or z, let’s say: 1. Vaccines are real, other COVID countermeasures are legit 2. I’m a decent person. 3. I wanna do my shit, despite recognising there’s potential harmful consequences to others. Well, the easiest way out of that bind is to drop belief 1). You resolve the conflict (and the cognitive dissonance) between beliefs 2 and 3 because it becomes moot if you no longer hold belief 1. I think part of why COVID was such a minefield in this domain was because of the clear clashes between personal autonomy and the public good. One has to draw their lines somewhere, but that will invite the judgement of others. It’d be interesting to see how we’d fare if there was some existential WW3 kinda deal now. You’d probably see folks noping out of service with the rationale it wasn’t really happening at all For me, part of the problem is social media's self-reinforcement loops and engagement-based algorithm which draws people in into these communities, making it more likely that outlandish ideas become part of their identity which is very hard to come back from. I mean, take this: some fuckwit figures out they can make a ton of cash pushing the concept of "wild births", the Free Birth Society (FBS), a business that promotes freebirth. Unlike home birth – birth at home with a midwife in attendance – freebirth means giving birth without any medical support. FBS promotes a version widely seen as extreme, even among freebirth advocates: it is anti-ultrasound, which it falsely claims harms babies, downplays serious medical conditions and promotes wild pregnancy, meaning pregnancy without any prenatal care.
FBS was founded by ex-doula Emilee Saldaya, and most women find it through its podcast, which has been downloaded 5m times, its Instagram account, which has 132,000 followers, its YouTube, with nearly 25m views, or its bestselling The Complete Guide to Freebirth, a video course co-created by Saldaya with fellow ex-doula Yolande Norris-Clark, available for download from FBS’s slick website. Analysis of FBS’s financial records by Stacey Ferris, a forensic accountant and academic at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, suggests it has generated revenues exceeding $13m since 2018.
... For $299, mothers can join FBS’s paid-for, private online community, the Lighthouse. To prepare for freebirth, women purchase The Complete Guide to Freebirth, for $399. Reading all that material, women become brainwashed into thinking that freebirth is the safest way to deliver their babies. The consequences are predictable, when there is no medical support on hand and things go sideways, you end up with dead babies or disabled children for no effing reason other than to make some fuckwit a lot of money. But sure, free speech and all that. This touches on a lot of my concerns regarding 'free speech' - Specifically, 'free speech' within the context of two important factors : 1) People correctly don't trust (the) government and/or authority. This opening of reasonable doubt can be, and is, exploited by conspiracy hawkers as an in to gain their trust. 2) This 'speech' can be, and is done for profit though abuse of social media algorithms. Either monetization directly on the platforms via ad revenue, or by a connected pipeline of products (I.e. 'supplement' products that claim to detox microplastics or boost your sperm count or whatever). The speech is not done for the idea it presents, but the profit it brings. Truth is unimportant, and truth is not popular because truth is boring. I have no issue with people defaulting to a mistrust of authority. In fact, I think that's probably good. I also have no issue with someone excercising their right to claim the earth is flat or that aliens invaded egypt 4,000 years ago, or that (insert government figure here) is actually a lizardperson. Where I take issue is the use of this 'free speech' to exploit stupid people for financial gain, without regard for the health and wellbeing of the stupid people, and without concern for the accuracy of what's being said. It's not important if anyone is actually a lizardperson, it's important that you get the eyes of people who believe lizardpeople are real, because odds are they'll take you at your word that your product works, because after all you agree with them that so-and-so is a lizard. Like dyhb mentioned, the clear answer to this is civil suits and other legal action, I just wonder if that's sufficient. Cases like InfoWars / Alex Jones stand as examples - This dude spent years building an empire on misinformation and profiting off of it. Sure, eventually he got taken down by one of his lies, but how many people did he hurt along the way? I don't think 'Silence Alex Jones' was ever the answer, but I do wish there was a way to force him to profit off the truth of his statements and not the conteoversy / conspiracy of them. I guess for me the bigger problem there is a whole slew of misinformation is too scattershot and generalised to sue for. I mean yeah if someone libels me I can sue (assuming I have the means). How does one collectively sue for say, rabble rousing about whole groups of people? Muslims and Jews are pretty common targets nowadays for example. I’m certainly no Alex Jones fan, I’m unsure how ‘damaging’ his content is in the wider context. Not because it isn’t utter bullshit, more in terms of is he too ‘out there’ to actually draw sufficient numbers in. I feel the real problematic stuff in terms of detrimental effects is way less obviously extreme nonsense, which I guess makes it even harder again to tackle. I mean fuck Alex Jones, but there seems plenty worse out there to me sensibilities that haven’t faced nearly the same censure Fair enough - I don't have particular evidence that his claims were quantifiably damaging (Outside, of course, of the one/ones he was sued for). For my purposes, he mostly stands as a clear example of 'selling misinformation' as a profitable affair. @baal stuff Keep swinging your sword in your fantasyland, bro. It's amusing to watch you miss.
Aye agreed, I just think even if you had a magic wand to deal with the overt grifter types you’d still have issues in other domains, and issues that are rather tricky to resolve
|
On March 28 2026 05:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 16:51 Falling wrote:On March 27 2026 14:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 02:25 Falling wrote:On March 27 2026 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote:
So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November.
The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old.
In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected.
I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there. I wouldn't care whether he is really left or a fascist. Blackwater merc itself is pretty disqualifying, with or without skull tattoo. Doesn't seem like Democrats need more purity tests? Or do they? I don't know specifically what he did for Blackwater, but seems a little classist to only support the people hiring the mercs. Be serious. Having a few red flags that he could be another Fetterman is not 'purity testing.' Is Fetterman the new Manchin? Aren't those undesirable, but necessary? So another Fetterman/Manchin would be a win? + Show Spoiler +You aren't making a clever point, reflecting old attacks against you back around. You are playing dumb games as these are very different contexts. Who could have foreseen that a guy who refused to even consider apologizing for chasing down and holding an innocent Black jogger at gunpoint would occasionally align with Republicans...? Whether something is a "purity test" or not isn't some objectively calculated metric. Is it? Welp. Clearly Sanders didn't. Nor the Pennsylvania Democrats. + Show Spoiler + Nor the guys running the Republican attacks... unless that was some sort of reverse-psychology to get their guy in?
They all dumb or what?
That's more or less my point with Gorsameth "purity testing" Platner.
|
On March 28 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 05:01 Falling wrote:On March 28 2026 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 16:51 Falling wrote:On March 27 2026 14:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 02:25 Falling wrote:On March 27 2026 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote:
So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November.
The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old.
In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected.
I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there. I wouldn't care whether he is really left or a fascist. Blackwater merc itself is pretty disqualifying, with or without skull tattoo. Doesn't seem like Democrats need more purity tests? Or do they? I don't know specifically what he did for Blackwater, but seems a little classist to only support the people hiring the mercs. Be serious. Having a few red flags that he could be another Fetterman is not 'purity testing.' Is Fetterman the new Manchin? Aren't those undesirable, but necessary? So another Fetterman/Manchin would be a win? + Show Spoiler +You aren't making a clever point, reflecting old attacks against you back around. You are playing dumb games as these are very different contexts. Who could have foreseen that a guy who refused to even consider apologizing for chasing down and holding an innocent Black jogger at gunpoint would occasionally align with Republicans...? Whether something is a "purity test" or not isn't some objectively calculated metric. Is it? Welp. Clearly Sanders didn't. Nor the Pennsylvania Democrats. + Show Spoiler + Nor the guys running the Republican attacks... unless that was some sort of reverse-psychology to get their guy in?
They all dumb or what? That's more or less my point with Gorsameth "purity testing" Platner. what point?
Its the primary and the choice is between a moderate, who I know nothing about but they're the current governer so is presumable somewhat palatable by the people of his state, and a former blackwater merc who apparently also made some rather questionable statements about something somewhere.
Is prefering the 'not former gun for hire from an organisation with a bad reputation' "purity testing" now?
Am I holding this person to some sort of unreasonable standard here?
Am I judging them unfairly and ignoring all the good they have supposedly done?
|
Northern Ireland26494 Posts
On March 27 2026 22:34 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 22:00 oBlade wrote:On March 27 2026 20:26 Jankisa wrote:On March 27 2026 20:21 Vivax wrote:On March 27 2026 18:15 baal wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:
@baal I dont think you understand your situation.
You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists.
You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem.
The reason I came back to tl.net was because BlackJack send me a PM asking me to come post in the politics thread but it didn't take long before I realized it was too late, Constantinople had fallen, but alas here I am, last man standing swinging my sword against the horde of reddit-brained barbarians until the ban-hammer inevitably gets me. Why would anyone invite you here to swing swords at people in the first place. Or why would you do that. That‘s like outing yourself as a propagandist. The hell is Constantinople even. In their racist heads, they (right wingers) see themselves as defenders of the white, Christian world against Muslim (and in this case also woke) hordes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_ConstantinopleYou can see references to it by the Christchurch shooter: He threatens Turkey in his manifesto, saying: “We are coming for Constantinople [using the historical name for Istanbul] and we will destroy every mosque and minaret in the city. Hagia Sophia will be free of minarets and Constantinople will be rightfully Christian owned once more.” Our guy here just went mask off, obviously one of the "hiding their power level" guys, compared to baal, oBlade looks like a well adjusted and normal individual. Don't listen to him baal. As an anarcho-capitalist Hispanic you're notably different than a white supremacist mass murderer in New Zealand. Normal people just scroll past the toxic BS. I find it very cute how you immediately came to defense of your fellow white supremacist / ethno nationalist. Also pretty cool that as soon as the fact that you guys are more or less ideologically aligned with guys like the Christchurch guy and Breivik was pointed out you had to come to make sure that everyone knows there are "notable differences". Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 22:07 pmh wrote:
Bunch of sociopaths and psychopaths in this thread. Very low iq as well. Lots of midwittery. Its written and formulated well but the takes show understanding of highschool lvl or they are flat out wrong and false. They dont see their stupid mistakes and when point out the reaction is predictably terrible like with all sociopaths.
Can i get my ban now pretty plz cherry on top. So i never get tempted again.
Baal has some decent takes oblade as well. Baal also has few terrible takes though but no point arguing. The fake liberals in this thread are the biggest sociopaths. And i say this as a european liberal.
Always liked gh still do. Dont ask me why i cant explain.
Anyway ban now plz and cya take care.
Then we have this, it's hilarious that someone who goes for "you are sociopaths and psychopaths" and "low IQ" is trying to insult people by saying they have high school understanding. And, of course, the age long tradition of victim-hood, again, in full display. Bravo guys, haha, what a bunch of walking cliches. EDIT: And the brave sir @pmh bravely self censored when he read his stupid post, well, here it is buddy, for everyone to enjoy, very happy I quoted it before you courageously deleted it.
Martyrdom is a hell of a drug eh?
I mean sure, I may be a sociopath with a low IQ, I like to think I make the odd decent post personally. Many make better than I, and there’s a lot of interesting insight from various perspectives. Fuckloads I disagree with too.
Iamsosmart into flaming out, pretty cringe though.
As I’ve frequently said I’d prefer it if the thread had a bit more representation from the right side of the ledger so to speak. More interesting for me anyway.
But like stick around and argue one’s worldview, this martyrdom shite is weak sauce
|
I also like to discuss things with people with different perspectives. It would be nice though if the arguments made were supported with sources so I can learn new stuff.
|
On March 28 2026 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2026 05:01 Falling wrote:On March 28 2026 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 16:51 Falling wrote:On March 27 2026 14:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 02:25 Falling wrote:On March 27 2026 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2026 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote:
So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November.
The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old.
In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected.
I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there. I wouldn't care whether he is really left or a fascist. Blackwater merc itself is pretty disqualifying, with or without skull tattoo. Doesn't seem like Democrats need more purity tests? Or do they? I don't know specifically what he did for Blackwater, but seems a little classist to only support the people hiring the mercs. Be serious. Having a few red flags that he could be another Fetterman is not 'purity testing.' Is Fetterman the new Manchin? Aren't those undesirable, but necessary? So another Fetterman/Manchin would be a win? + Show Spoiler +You aren't making a clever point, reflecting old attacks against you back around. You are playing dumb games as these are very different contexts. Who could have foreseen that a guy who refused to even consider apologizing for chasing down and holding an innocent Black jogger at gunpoint would occasionally align with Republicans...? Whether something is a "purity test" or not isn't some objectively calculated metric. Is it? Welp. Clearly Sanders didn't. Nor the Pennsylvania Democrats. + Show Spoiler + Nor the guys running the Republican attacks... unless that was some sort of reverse-psychology to get their guy in?
They all dumb or what? That's more or less my point with Gorsameth "purity testing" Platner. + Show Spoiler +what point?
Its the primary and the choice is between a moderate, who I know nothing about but they're the current governer so is presumable somewhat palatable by the people of his state, and a former blackwater merc who apparently also made some rather questionable statements about something somewhere. Is prefering the 'not former gun for hire from an organisation with a bad reputation' "purity testing" now? + Show Spoiler +Am I holding this person to some sort of unreasonable standard here?
Am I judging them unfairly and ignoring all the good they have supposedly done?
"Pretty disqualifying" was what I was commenting on. While also demonstrating how "purity tests" aren't an objectively calculated metric, they are/it is actually a deliberately manipulative rhetorical tool. EDIT: Also a point on class since you haven't seemed to find hiring/utilizing Blackwater mercs to be "pretty disqualifying".
|
On March 27 2026 22:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 20:26 Jankisa wrote:On March 27 2026 20:21 Vivax wrote:On March 27 2026 18:15 baal wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:
@baal I dont think you understand your situation.
You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists.
You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem.
The reason I came back to tl.net was because BlackJack send me a PM asking me to come post in the politics thread but it didn't take long before I realized it was too late, Constantinople had fallen, but alas here I am, last man standing swinging my sword against the horde of reddit-brained barbarians until the ban-hammer inevitably gets me. Why would anyone invite you here to swing swords at people in the first place. Or why would you do that. That‘s like outing yourself as a propagandist. The hell is Constantinople even. In their racist heads, they (right wingers) see themselves as defenders of the white, Christian world against Muslim (and in this case also woke) hordes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_ConstantinopleYou can see references to it by the Christchurch shooter: He threatens Turkey in his manifesto, saying: “We are coming for Constantinople [using the historical name for Istanbul] and we will destroy every mosque and minaret in the city. Hagia Sophia will be free of minarets and Constantinople will be rightfully Christian owned once more.” Our guy here just went mask off, obviously one of the "hiding their power level" guys, compared to baal, oBlade looks like a well adjusted and normal individual. Don't listen to him baal. As an anarcho-capitalist Hispanic you're notably different than a white supremacist mass murderer in New Zealand. Normal people just scroll past the toxic BS.
Normal people don’t read political threads on websites dedicated to 30 year old games lol
On March 28 2026 00:29 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:On March 27 2026 23:20 LightSpectra wrote:
If you wikipedia what Constantinople is, you'd find out it wasn't fallen by "barbarians" like baal was implying but the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were more technologically and scientifically advanced than the Roman (Byzantine) Empire was, so one wonders what would inspire someone to describe them like that. First, the act of attacking someone's city and taking it can be argued to be barbaric per se.Otherwise, this reading requires simultaneously believing baal was also implying the Ottoman Empire were "reddit-brained." Since that wouldn't make sense, your tangent is based on rhetorical manipulation. Who are you to claim the Ottoman Empire wasn't reddit-brained ? Janissaries with thick neckbeards and rudimentary firebombs.
Ty for this, best post of the week
|
Northern Ireland26494 Posts
On March 28 2026 09:07 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 22:00 oBlade wrote:On March 27 2026 20:26 Jankisa wrote:On March 27 2026 20:21 Vivax wrote:On March 27 2026 18:15 baal wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:
@baal I dont think you understand your situation.
You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists.
You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem.
The reason I came back to tl.net was because BlackJack send me a PM asking me to come post in the politics thread but it didn't take long before I realized it was too late, Constantinople had fallen, but alas here I am, last man standing swinging my sword against the horde of reddit-brained barbarians until the ban-hammer inevitably gets me. Why would anyone invite you here to swing swords at people in the first place. Or why would you do that. That‘s like outing yourself as a propagandist. The hell is Constantinople even. In their racist heads, they (right wingers) see themselves as defenders of the white, Christian world against Muslim (and in this case also woke) hordes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_ConstantinopleYou can see references to it by the Christchurch shooter: He threatens Turkey in his manifesto, saying: “We are coming for Constantinople [using the historical name for Istanbul] and we will destroy every mosque and minaret in the city. Hagia Sophia will be free of minarets and Constantinople will be rightfully Christian owned once more.” Our guy here just went mask off, obviously one of the "hiding their power level" guys, compared to baal, oBlade looks like a well adjusted and normal individual. Don't listen to him baal. As an anarcho-capitalist Hispanic you're notably different than a white supremacist mass murderer in New Zealand. Normal people just scroll past the toxic BS. Normal people don’t read political threads on websites dedicated to 30 year old games lol Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 00:29 Vivax wrote:On March 27 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:On March 27 2026 23:20 LightSpectra wrote:
If you wikipedia what Constantinople is, you'd find out it wasn't fallen by "barbarians" like baal was implying but the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were more technologically and scientifically advanced than the Roman (Byzantine) Empire was, so one wonders what would inspire someone to describe them like that. First, the act of attacking someone's city and taking it can be argued to be barbaric per se.Otherwise, this reading requires simultaneously believing baal was also implying the Ottoman Empire were "reddit-brained." Since that wouldn't make sense, your tangent is based on rhetorical manipulation. Who are you to claim the Ottoman Empire wasn't reddit-brained ? Janissaries with thick neckbeards and rudimentary firebombs. Ty for this, best post of the week
I feel simultaneously personally attacked and in 100% agreement with that
|
On March 27 2026 13:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:On March 27 2026 03:46 Jankisa wrote:Well, instead of speculating, let's see what they actually propose and why: Source: https://apnews.com/article/data-centers-ai-electricity-sanders-aoc-65651bd28c3d911d18eeb46cd54f4c75Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment.
The legislation by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unlikely to advance in either the House or Senate, but it shows the deep concerns many progressives share about the growing impact of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Communities across the country have seen a backlash against data centers over fears about rising electricity prices and concerns about pollution and water consumption. Opposition to rising power prices was also a key factor in Democratic wins last year in elections in states including Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey. So, yeah, it's about introducing the moratorium until real worries about impact of AI can be studied and regulated, namely environmental concerns (water and electricity usage) and worker displacement (AI replacing peoples jobs). These are very valid concerns and the bill, to me, makes absolute sense, because USA is hurdling towards a future it knows nothing about, but, you know, that's just how things are and have been for a long time. The Data Centers that have already been planned and approved would, form what I read comfortably cover all the AI needs for the foreseeable future, they are being built on the promise of future demand that is not actually there, at least not now, because they are banking on AI becoming AGI/ASI where you won't be able to avoid it if you want to have any chance to succeed in the world. FFS "Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment." This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. On March 26 2026 19:31 Simberto wrote:
While this is what free speech currently means, i think it is somewhat important to think about what free speech should mean in a modern world.
Which is why section 230 needs changing, no one should be able to moderate and being immune from responsibility at the same time, it should be one, or another. @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists. You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem. I’m unsure how that’s your takeaway from several pages of people spitballing ideas on some genuinely difficult problems. On the bolded specifically, that’s not remotely the argument most made. Musk and his merry band of sycophantic fanboys and fangirls got criticised for claiming to be ‘free speech absolutists’. And when Musk acted in direct contravention of this supposedly deeply held principle of his, and other ‘free speech absolutists’ defended it, they were rightly called out for being full of shit. Overall I think you’re grossly oversimplifying various positions to try and fashion zingers here that aren’t really landing. Alternatively you could choose to earnestly engage in quite an interesting topic
On the Musk thing you should replace bolded with maliciously and you would be closer to the truth. You are probably aware that I am very much pro free speech person. Still if someone comes to my home and start offending my family he will get kick out, I dont think this is hypocritical whatsoever. Concept of free speech is that speech is protected from government, not that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want and everyone must be fine with that.
Regarding your last paragraph: For comparison I think that you (by you here I mean left in general) take very simple problems and make them overcomplicated to grant yourself advantage under the guise of solving (imaginary) issues.
On March 27 2026 16:48 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:On March 27 2026 03:46 Jankisa wrote:Well, instead of speculating, let's see what they actually propose and why: Source: https://apnews.com/article/data-centers-ai-electricity-sanders-aoc-65651bd28c3d911d18eeb46cd54f4c75Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment.
The legislation by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unlikely to advance in either the House or Senate, but it shows the deep concerns many progressives share about the growing impact of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Communities across the country have seen a backlash against data centers over fears about rising electricity prices and concerns about pollution and water consumption. Opposition to rising power prices was also a key factor in Democratic wins last year in elections in states including Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey. So, yeah, it's about introducing the moratorium until real worries about impact of AI can be studied and regulated, namely environmental concerns (water and electricity usage) and worker displacement (AI replacing peoples jobs). These are very valid concerns and the bill, to me, makes absolute sense, because USA is hurdling towards a future it knows nothing about, but, you know, that's just how things are and have been for a long time. The Data Centers that have already been planned and approved would, form what I read comfortably cover all the AI needs for the foreseeable future, they are being built on the promise of future demand that is not actually there, at least not now, because they are banking on AI becoming AGI/ASI where you won't be able to avoid it if you want to have any chance to succeed in the world. FFS "Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment." This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. On March 26 2026 19:31 Simberto wrote:
While this is what free speech currently means, i think it is somewhat important to think about what free speech should mean in a modern world.
Which is why section 230 needs changing, no one should be able to moderate and being immune from responsibility at the same time, it should be one, or another. @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists. You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem. I think you can do better. Note the lack of pejorative adjectives in my posts. I will happily read any source you provide.
You sure about that?
You see words exist to be used and often so have values behind their exact meaning added to them. In case of brutal obscenities they have certain shock value, which cause them to be more noticeable and stuck in your memory better. For example if guy in front smile at you you will forget it in maybe couple of days, if the guy in front of you will have his head blown up you will remember it with livid details for probably all your life. So could I do better? depends what I wanted to achieve. If I wanted to create of impression of me being 18th century gentlemen then for sure I could. If I wanted to make example you will remember then tbf also probably could do better, but this was quick and easy way to achieve just that, so...
On March 27 2026 22:09 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:
FFS
"Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment."
This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. Why did you share this quote when the sentence that follows has nothing to do with it?
It has everything to do with it, you just dont understand why.
|
On March 28 2026 09:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 13:53 WombaT wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:On March 27 2026 03:46 Jankisa wrote:Well, instead of speculating, let's see what they actually propose and why: Source: https://apnews.com/article/data-centers-ai-electricity-sanders-aoc-65651bd28c3d911d18eeb46cd54f4c75Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment.
The legislation by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unlikely to advance in either the House or Senate, but it shows the deep concerns many progressives share about the growing impact of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Communities across the country have seen a backlash against data centers over fears about rising electricity prices and concerns about pollution and water consumption. Opposition to rising power prices was also a key factor in Democratic wins last year in elections in states including Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey. So, yeah, it's about introducing the moratorium until real worries about impact of AI can be studied and regulated, namely environmental concerns (water and electricity usage) and worker displacement (AI replacing peoples jobs). These are very valid concerns and the bill, to me, makes absolute sense, because USA is hurdling towards a future it knows nothing about, but, you know, that's just how things are and have been for a long time. The Data Centers that have already been planned and approved would, form what I read comfortably cover all the AI needs for the foreseeable future, they are being built on the promise of future demand that is not actually there, at least not now, because they are banking on AI becoming AGI/ASI where you won't be able to avoid it if you want to have any chance to succeed in the world. FFS "Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment." This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. On March 26 2026 19:31 Simberto wrote:
While this is what free speech currently means, i think it is somewhat important to think about what free speech should mean in a modern world.
Which is why section 230 needs changing, no one should be able to moderate and being immune from responsibility at the same time, it should be one, or another. @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists. You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem. I’m unsure how that’s your takeaway from several pages of people spitballing ideas on some genuinely difficult problems. On the bolded specifically, that’s not remotely the argument most made. Musk and his merry band of sycophantic fanboys and fangirls got criticised for claiming to be ‘free speech absolutists’. And when Musk acted in direct contravention of this supposedly deeply held principle of his, and other ‘free speech absolutists’ defended it, they were rightly called out for being full of shit. Overall I think you’re grossly oversimplifying various positions to try and fashion zingers here that aren’t really landing. Alternatively you could choose to earnestly engage in quite an interesting topic On the Musk thing you should replace bolded with maliciously and you would be closer to the truth. You are probably aware that I am very much pro free speech person. Still if someone comes to my home and start offending my family he will get kick out, I dont think this is hypocritical whatsoever. Concept of free speech is that speech is protected from government, not that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want and everyone must be fine with that. Regarding your last paragraph: For comparison I think that you (by you here I mean left in general) take very simple problems and make them overcomplicated to grant yourself advantage under the guise of solving (imaginary) issues. Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 16:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:On March 27 2026 03:46 Jankisa wrote:Well, instead of speculating, let's see what they actually propose and why: Source: https://apnews.com/article/data-centers-ai-electricity-sanders-aoc-65651bd28c3d911d18eeb46cd54f4c75Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment.
The legislation by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unlikely to advance in either the House or Senate, but it shows the deep concerns many progressives share about the growing impact of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Communities across the country have seen a backlash against data centers over fears about rising electricity prices and concerns about pollution and water consumption. Opposition to rising power prices was also a key factor in Democratic wins last year in elections in states including Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey. So, yeah, it's about introducing the moratorium until real worries about impact of AI can be studied and regulated, namely environmental concerns (water and electricity usage) and worker displacement (AI replacing peoples jobs). These are very valid concerns and the bill, to me, makes absolute sense, because USA is hurdling towards a future it knows nothing about, but, you know, that's just how things are and have been for a long time. The Data Centers that have already been planned and approved would, form what I read comfortably cover all the AI needs for the foreseeable future, they are being built on the promise of future demand that is not actually there, at least not now, because they are banking on AI becoming AGI/ASI where you won't be able to avoid it if you want to have any chance to succeed in the world. FFS "Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment." This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. On March 26 2026 19:31 Simberto wrote:
While this is what free speech currently means, i think it is somewhat important to think about what free speech should mean in a modern world.
Which is why section 230 needs changing, no one should be able to moderate and being immune from responsibility at the same time, it should be one, or another. @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists. You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem. I think you can do better. Note the lack of pejorative adjectives in my posts. I will happily read any source you provide. You sure about that? You see words exist to be used and often so have values behind their exact meaning added to them. In case of brutal obscenities they have certain shock value, which cause them to be more noticeable and stuck in your memory better. For example if guy in front smile at you you will forget it in maybe couple of days, if the guy in front of you will have his head blown up you will remember it with livid details for probably all your life. So could I do better? depends what I wanted to achieve. If I wanted to create of impression of me being 18th century gentlemen then for sure I could. If I wanted to make example you will remember then tbf also probably could do better, but this was quick and easy way to achieve just that, so... Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 22:09 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:
FFS
"Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment."
This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. Why did you share this quote when the sentence that follows has nothing to do with it? It has everything to do with it, you just dont understand why.
Free speech was always intended too and always had responsibility and consequences. It is just that you just read the title and made assumptions then lived by them, and sadly you are far from alone.
Early legal formulations, such as the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man, allowed freedom of speech but held individuals "responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law". This meant speech that caused harm could lead to legal consequences.
Well you have freedom it has always been balanced against the need to protect the rights of others.
So in the states you should be able to criticize Trump and not get your show canceled by him threatening the networks. But you can't threaten to kill people, post child porn, or a whole bunch of other things. And it should work that way.
|
Northern Ireland26494 Posts
On March 28 2026 09:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 13:53 WombaT wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:On March 27 2026 03:46 Jankisa wrote:Well, instead of speculating, let's see what they actually propose and why: Source: https://apnews.com/article/data-centers-ai-electricity-sanders-aoc-65651bd28c3d911d18eeb46cd54f4c75Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment.
The legislation by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unlikely to advance in either the House or Senate, but it shows the deep concerns many progressives share about the growing impact of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Communities across the country have seen a backlash against data centers over fears about rising electricity prices and concerns about pollution and water consumption. Opposition to rising power prices was also a key factor in Democratic wins last year in elections in states including Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey. So, yeah, it's about introducing the moratorium until real worries about impact of AI can be studied and regulated, namely environmental concerns (water and electricity usage) and worker displacement (AI replacing peoples jobs). These are very valid concerns and the bill, to me, makes absolute sense, because USA is hurdling towards a future it knows nothing about, but, you know, that's just how things are and have been for a long time. The Data Centers that have already been planned and approved would, form what I read comfortably cover all the AI needs for the foreseeable future, they are being built on the promise of future demand that is not actually there, at least not now, because they are banking on AI becoming AGI/ASI where you won't be able to avoid it if you want to have any chance to succeed in the world. FFS "Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment." This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. On March 26 2026 19:31 Simberto wrote:
While this is what free speech currently means, i think it is somewhat important to think about what free speech should mean in a modern world.
Which is why section 230 needs changing, no one should be able to moderate and being immune from responsibility at the same time, it should be one, or another. @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists. You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem. I’m unsure how that’s your takeaway from several pages of people spitballing ideas on some genuinely difficult problems. On the bolded specifically, that’s not remotely the argument most made. Musk and his merry band of sycophantic fanboys and fangirls got criticised for claiming to be ‘free speech absolutists’. And when Musk acted in direct contravention of this supposedly deeply held principle of his, and other ‘free speech absolutists’ defended it, they were rightly called out for being full of shit. Overall I think you’re grossly oversimplifying various positions to try and fashion zingers here that aren’t really landing. Alternatively you could choose to earnestly engage in quite an interesting topic On the Musk thing you should replace bolded with maliciously and you would be closer to the truth. You are probably aware that I am very much pro free speech person. Still if someone comes to my home and start offending my family he will get kick out, I dont think this is hypocritical whatsoever. Concept of free speech is that speech is protected from government, not that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want and everyone must be fine with that. Regarding your last paragraph: For comparison I think that you (by you here I mean left in general) take very simple problems and make them overcomplicated to grant yourself advantage under the guise of solving (imaginary) issues. Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 16:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:On March 27 2026 03:46 Jankisa wrote:Well, instead of speculating, let's see what they actually propose and why: Source: https://apnews.com/article/data-centers-ai-electricity-sanders-aoc-65651bd28c3d911d18eeb46cd54f4c75Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment.
The legislation by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unlikely to advance in either the House or Senate, but it shows the deep concerns many progressives share about the growing impact of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Communities across the country have seen a backlash against data centers over fears about rising electricity prices and concerns about pollution and water consumption. Opposition to rising power prices was also a key factor in Democratic wins last year in elections in states including Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey. So, yeah, it's about introducing the moratorium until real worries about impact of AI can be studied and regulated, namely environmental concerns (water and electricity usage) and worker displacement (AI replacing peoples jobs). These are very valid concerns and the bill, to me, makes absolute sense, because USA is hurdling towards a future it knows nothing about, but, you know, that's just how things are and have been for a long time. The Data Centers that have already been planned and approved would, form what I read comfortably cover all the AI needs for the foreseeable future, they are being built on the promise of future demand that is not actually there, at least not now, because they are banking on AI becoming AGI/ASI where you won't be able to avoid it if you want to have any chance to succeed in the world. FFS "Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment." This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. On March 26 2026 19:31 Simberto wrote:
While this is what free speech currently means, i think it is somewhat important to think about what free speech should mean in a modern world.
Which is why section 230 needs changing, no one should be able to moderate and being immune from responsibility at the same time, it should be one, or another. @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists. You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem. I think you can do better. Note the lack of pejorative adjectives in my posts. I will happily read any source you provide. You sure about that? You see words exist to be used and often so have values behind their exact meaning added to them. In case of brutal obscenities they have certain shock value, which cause them to be more noticeable and stuck in your memory better. For example if guy in front smile at you you will forget it in maybe couple of days, if the guy in front of you will have his head blown up you will remember it with livid details for probably all your life. So could I do better? depends what I wanted to achieve. If I wanted to create of impression of me being 18th century gentlemen then for sure I could. If I wanted to make example you will remember then tbf also probably could do better, but this was quick and easy way to achieve just that, so... Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 22:09 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote:
FFS
"Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment."
This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers. Why did you share this quote when the sentence that follows has nothing to do with it? It has everything to do with it, you just dont understand why.
On this I shall disagree pretty vociferously. It would be like if Elon Musk bought some local comedy spot, having complained it stifled free speech, and that he’d make it a free speech zone. Then on opening night an act makes fun of him and he bans them.
It’s within his right to do it, but it very much goes counter to what he himself was claiming. You almost can’t get more hypocritical than that.
And that’s not even touching on the potential pitfalls of these mass communication networks being subject to the whim of one dude, or a handful of people or whatever. Which is also for me an area of concern.
More generally it’s quite the complex area really, I know I personally struggle to reconcile ideas, principles and what we’re actually seeing in terms of potential negatives of free speech. I think other posters have spoken eloquently and given their ideas while similarly struggling to juggle all of that.
There’s plenty of material and ideas to bounce off here, but you seem to be jumping in with preconceptions that don’t necessarily match up to what people in here have been discussing.
|
On March 27 2026 20:26 Jankisa wrote:
In their racist heads, they (right wingers) see themselves as defenders of the white, Christian world against Muslim (and in this case also woke) hordes:
Nothing conveys white supremacy more than a Mexican fighting a bunch of Europeans lmao
|
United States43785 Posts
On March 28 2026 11:36 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 20:26 Jankisa wrote:
In their racist heads, they (right wingers) see themselves as defenders of the white, Christian world against Muslim (and in this case also woke) hordes:
Nothing conveys white supremacy more than a Mexican fighting a bunch of Europeans lmao
I’m sure you proudly self identify as one of the good ones. Seems very much your brand.
|
On March 28 2026 11:36 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2026 20:26 Jankisa wrote:
In their racist heads, they (right wingers) see themselves as defenders of the white, Christian world against Muslim (and in this case also woke) hordes:
Nothing conveys white supremacy more than a Mexican fighting a bunch of Europeans lmao Politics is pretty dark right now. Almost everything on the center-right to right-wing is coded fascist and Nazi and bigoted in some circles. Which, to be honest, styling yourself as the defender of Constantinople before the barbarian hordes is almost a formal invitation for it. The alt-right antisemitic fringe actually does believe nationalities or races to be barbarians incapable of civilization, and that overlaps with somebody on the right that waxes poetic (I guess) on the downfall of civilized debate.
I played SC2 a long time ago and read past threads, and I do kind of remember it to be in better shape in the 2010s. At least, in terms of debating substance over the ad hominem. I'll have to revisit and see if my memory is still good. The dregs weren't saying posters were incels that secretly loved the violence, and the moderates weren't questioning why people had sold their souls. I wouldn't call it the collapse of Constantinople, and that strikes me as cringey, but something was lost and I feel that loss.
|
On March 27 2026 22:01 EnDeR_ wrote:
Considering the complexity and scale of the problem, dealing with COVID was always going to be difficult. Not all interventions were successful, but it wasn't all bad. Operation warp speed was a huge success, for instance, and something I'm very grateful for.
I don't know if you are in twitter but the virologist community and pretty much every statistician were imploring to react quickly with extreme measures, most countries under reacted and were so slow, (east Asia reacted much better since they've dealt with outbreaks before), travel restrictions were way too late so they did nothing and the outbreak became a pandemic.
The OMS on Jan 15th said that there was no evidence of human-to-human contagion that was a month after many videos of the Chinese dropping dead on the streets were welding in people in their apartments, 15 days later the OMS declared it a global emergency.
Trump said it was like the flu, Pelosi went to China Town encouraging people to go out, Boris Johnson said it had a quick recovery, Mexico's president told people to go eat out, the press keep comparing its deadliness with the flu etc etc etc.
"operation warp speed" was just subsidizing vaccine production and lowering regulations, that is your benchmark for state competency? damn.
Regarding the bolded; it is not quite the same. A message of "vaccines continue to be effective" generates a lot less engagement than "they're coming for your kids"; algorithms are biased to promote unusual content because that generates more engagement. There's a whole industry of people that have figured out how to get you to engage; i mean it's the whole basis of "click-bait".
The anti-vaxxers debate with Dr mike also got many millions views, that is the stuff that actually works.
|
On March 28 2026 11:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 11:36 baal wrote:On March 27 2026 20:26 Jankisa wrote:
In their racist heads, they (right wingers) see themselves as defenders of the white, Christian world against Muslim (and in this case also woke) hordes:
Nothing conveys white supremacy more than a Mexican fighting a bunch of Europeans lmao I’m sure you proudly self identify as one of the good ones. Seems very much your brand.
I'm not a true Mexican unless I support your authoritarian left political views lol.
|
On March 28 2026 11:59 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 11:36 baal wrote:On March 27 2026 20:26 Jankisa wrote:
In their racist heads, they (right wingers) see themselves as defenders of the white, Christian world against Muslim (and in this case also woke) hordes:
Nothing conveys white supremacy more than a Mexican fighting a bunch of Europeans lmao Politics is pretty dark right now. Almost everything on the center-right to right-wing is coded fascist and Nazi and bigoted in some circles. Which, to be honest, styling yourself as the defender of Constantinople before the barbarian hordes is almost a formal invitation for it. The alt-right antisemitic fringe actually does believe nationalities or races to be barbarians incapable of civilization, and that overlaps with somebody on the right that waxes poetic (I guess) on the downfall of civilized debate. I played SC2 a long time ago and read past threads, and I do kind of remember it to be in better shape in the 2010s. At least, in terms of debating substance over the ad hominem. I'll have to revisit and see if my memory is still good. The dregs weren't saying posters were incels that secretly loved the violence, and the moderates weren't questioning why people had sold their souls. I wouldn't call it the collapse of Constantinople, and that strikes me as cringey, but something was lost and I feel that loss.
The Constantinople reference feels white supremacists to you because you are also seeing it through the same leftists lens where everything is racist and fascists, It's just a random reference to the fall of an old great civilization in reference to old tl.net.
Let's then say that I'm at the defense of theTwin Cities against the Mongolian horde but it doesn't quite have the same punch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
