|
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 28 2026 10:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 09:44 Razyda wrote: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. 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... 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 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."
It is good that you disagreeing, because it opens discussion. Now I'll try to explain where you got it wrong. Which is back to what freedom of speech means. lets go with your analogy to comedy club. Somebody makes fun of him in his club and got banned from there (depending on the advertising it is kinda shitty, however I dont recall Musk saying you can say whatever you want on Twitter you wont be banned). Now this person goes to the club on the other side of the road and keeps making fun of him, and he leaves this person alone. Doesnt send police, doesnt sue, just ignore. This is what free speech is. Private person can act over what you say, but government shouldnt be able to.
"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. "
I fully agree with you on this one, hence my reference to section 230. Various platforms should have either immunity to content they have on, or ability to moderate said content, never both.
"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. "
It really isnt. second part of your sentence simply makes you reasonable person, as only fools have no doubts. Did they? Because from what I have seen other posters for few pages feverishly argued that baal is wrong because count whatever wasn't jailed, but only fined, without realising that issue is whether police/court should get involved at all.
"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."
Preconceptions? like, really? We are both on this forum long enough. from what I recall inciting violence through speech is something you are against? (my position is "direct" incitement of violence is free speech infringement I am willing to tolerate). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
On March 28 2026 10:34 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 09:44 Razyda wrote: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. 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... 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.
Once we move to 18th century France politics, I will respond accordingly. As far as US goes:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When it comes to to Colbert: FCC guy from interview should be sacked immediately over it, because either he doesnt know what he is doing, or because he knows and breaks first amendment. As for Trump, quite frankly, do you guys even realise that social media arent some sort of Trump Death Note?
|
I'm happy to talk more about how far-right politicians have been using Constantinople as an analogy for immigration destroying a white civilization in its golden age (none of which are true) for many years now, but come on, a video game website's politics megathread being populated with people who disagree with you on something is not comparable to the conquest of the Roman Empire lmao.
|
On March 28 2026 12:30 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm happy to talk more about how far-right politicians have been using Constantinople as an analogy for immigration destroying a white civilization in its golden age (none of which are true) for many years now, but come on, a video game website's politics megathread being populated with people who disagree with you on something is not comparable to the conquest of the Roman Empire lmao.
Medina is much better example to be fair.
|
On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 12:30 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm happy to talk more about how far-right politicians have been using Constantinople as an analogy for immigration destroying a white civilization in its golden age (none of which are true) for many years now, but come on, a video game website's politics megathread being populated with people who disagree with you on something is not comparable to the conquest of the Roman Empire lmao. Medina is much better example to be fair.
It's still casually hyperbolic, but that at least makes a little more sense as an analogy. Perhaps one day the tables will turn on us anti-hate speechists in this thread and we'll get metaphorically beheaded like the Banu Qurayza or something.
|
On March 28 2026 13:05 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 12:30 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm happy to talk more about how far-right politicians have been using Constantinople as an analogy for immigration destroying a white civilization in its golden age (none of which are true) for many years now, but come on, a video game website's politics megathread being populated with people who disagree with you on something is not comparable to the conquest of the Roman Empire lmao. Medina is much better example to be fair. It's still casually hyperbolic, but that at least makes a little more sense as an analogy. Perhaps one day the tables will turn on us anti-hate speechists in this thread and we'll get metaphorically beheaded like the Banu Qurayza or something.
Possible, or maybe you just manage to get rid of all the Jews and turn Muslim, who can tell...
|
On March 26 2026 10:16 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2026 09:10 XenOsky wrote:On March 26 2026 05:54 Broetchenholer wrote:
You are offended by being called communist but not by being called anti semitic? Your text about "the jews" during the Nazi Regime was certainly not anti-zionist, because those jews you were talking about were not in Israel, they were literally staying in europe or the US and did not fight for some idea. Sounds like you are talking in very broad strokes about just "the jews" to me. FUCK ISRAEL btw Please seek mental help.
really... me? or those who did this to a 21 months old baby? is this their God? this is what the were chosen for? to Cigarrette burn little babies?...
+ Show Spoiler +
fuck off calling me antisemite, fuck off calling me a communist...
Israel is the Nazi in this story, they are racist not me calling em out for what they are: COWARDS, IMPERIALISTIC AND PEDOPHILES
+ Show Spoiler +
All the defenders of the Israeli state, you are complicit in the killing, rape, murder, mutilation, genocide and starving of thousands of children in Gaza, you are complicit.
calling those of us who see reality as it is "anti-Semites"....
The story falls apart by itself, Israel is the Nazi of the 21st century, the one who cannot see it is blind on purpose. Or pro-NazIsrael himself.
AMERICANS: THIS IS WHAT YOUR ARMY IS DOING IN GAZA AND IRAN, CONGRATULATIONS, BEAUTIFUL DEMOCRACY
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 28 2026 13:35 XenOsky wrote:
Israel is the Nazi in this story
You are correct about this one, however rest of your post is ranting for no reason. It will never work with this approach.
Ideally you would provide some sort of sources, some relative comparison. You would still be called antisemitic but you would have ability to differentiate between people genuinely interested in argument and people whose only interest is to call you a nazi and trying to ridicule you.
|
On March 28 2026 12:02 baal wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Complex new problem arrived and governments were simply unprepared or ignored their own pandemic guidance. I'm not going to disagree that a lot of it was a shit show, I also sympathise somewhat because there weren't really any clear solutions until the vaccine arrived and every intervention had downsides. In retrospect, all governments that I'm aware of instituted some form of lockdown and some form of mask mandate, which did help to save lives with some big and obvious downsides.
operation warp speed" was just subsidizing vaccine production and lowering regulations, that is your benchmark for state competency? damn.
You seem to be implying that safety standards were lowered, which was not the case. They allowed phases to overlap, which reduced the timescale, but no safety standard was compromised. What you are stating here is simply the unsubstantiated antivaxx argument.
I don't think you understand just quite how many scientists participated in the development of the vaccine and how big an effort was done to get it done. Not just by US scientists but a worldwide coordinated effort. It is something that as a scientist I'm incredibly proud of, we all came together and delivered when we were needed.
With regards to your last statement, do you have any source which studied the effect of this video/debate on the worldwide growth of the antivaxx movement?
|
On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense?
|
On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense?
Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence.
If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist".
One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence.
|
People have been (usually wrongly) accusing their political opponents of being fascists since even before World War II, during, and immediately after. Winston Churchill lost the election of 1945 partially because he said his opponent Clement Attlee would have to form "some kind of Gestapo" (paraphrase because I can't look up the exact quote right now) for his plans, and it was considered in extremely bad taste. If you want to make a case it's an incitement to violence, well, good luck. It was already a widespread precedent before any of us were born.
Besides, if you like I can make a large compilation of Republicans calling the Clintons and Obama fascists, Nazis, rapists, whatever you like. Remember "Operation Jade Helm"? Remember January 6? You're going to have to work harder than Sisyphus to get the moral highground here. Regardless of what you think of the people in this thread, it's just objectively true that Republicans have both incited more violence, and more importantly, CAUSED more violence.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26470 Posts
On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
It is good that you disagreeing, because it opens discussion. Now I'll try to explain where you got it wrong. Which is back to what freedom of speech means. lets go with your analogy to comedy club. Somebody makes fun of him in his club and got banned from there (depending on the advertising it is kinda shitty, however I dont recall Musk saying you can say whatever you want on Twitter you wont be banned). Now this person goes to the club on the other side of the road and keeps making fun of him, and he leaves this person alone. Doesnt send police, doesnt sue, just ignore. This is what free speech is. Private person can act over what you say, but government shouldnt be able to.
He’s said many, many similar things though, sure not those exact, exact words perhaps.
There’s also a wider issue here, which is namely that some of these platforms are so large, embedded and without particularly meaningful competition that they wield a hell of a lot of potential power. Should such platforms have to adopt certain standards, or perhaps citizens across the globe should have some ‘digital rights’? Hey perhaps that is a good direction of travel, or perhaps one may not and want to let the market decide.
Now that problem isn’t remotely an exclusively Musk thing, we’ve seen this play out in many different places. Just a rather obvious example of it. I mean the guy didn’t even couch some actions in rules or terms of service violations, it simply was things he personally disliked in many instances.
It ain’t good fam. My concern is that many of the folks banging on about free speech and the looney left for the past 15 years have gone rather quiet lately when there’s plenty of examples of what they were complaining about, from both private actors and the state, right there front and centre.
On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
It really isnt. second part of your sentence simply makes you reasonable person, as only fools have no doubts. Did they? Because from what I have seen other posters for few pages feverishly argued that baal is wrong because count whatever wasn't jailed, but only fined, without realising that issue is whether police/court should get involved at all.
Baal was incorrect though. I’d agree that there’s a wider discussion that did get a bit buried in arguing that specific point. That said, it did happen and opinions did vary. I certainly recall myself and Drone arguing against state censure in this instance, possibly others did too.
On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
Preconceptions? like, really? We are both on this forum long enough. from what I recall inciting violence through speech is something you are against? (my position is "direct" incitement of violence is free speech infringement I am willing to tolerate). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
I mean, I wonder why that could be eh? At least within here it strikes me that folks are criticised more for bad arguments, or for holding specific positions, rather than specifically for being right leaning. And GH gets plenty of flak, more than basically anyone and is rather left wing
A preconception that some in here are out to curtail free speech or whatever and then arguing from that place. Versus what I think is the case in this thread broadly where people generally wish to preserve free speech, but at a time there are big challenges to the structure of our societies by certain aspects of it.
I think people use such terms way, way too liberally at times for sure, although I wouldn’t consider them direct incitements to violence or anything like that
|
United States43758 Posts
On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:
nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies
That's a pretty fucked up belief to hold, but then again I guess you are a fascist.
|
On March 29 2026 02:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:
nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies That's a pretty fucked up belief to hold, but then again I guess you are a fascist.
Eloquence like this just harkens back to the great Winston Churchill during his loss to Labour.
|
United States43758 Posts
|
On March 28 2026 12:22 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 11:59 dyhb wrote: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. I said you were inviting it given what you know about who's going to be reading your post. If you can't see it through a leftist lens, or globally a European center-right to leftist lens, then you just don't know your audience. It's not good for a writer to be ignorant of his audience. Oh yeah, I can see it through multiple lenses. I can also see that you could good-faith intend it as lamenting the fall of better debate from a better-moderated website. I partially agree, but it's not like TL will be a bulwark against the broader societal collapse of civilized political debate best represented by who was most recently elected President. They just don't have the volunteer moderator staff and diversity of moderator political beliefs to accomplish that if they tried. I read back in the website moderation thread: they've got the last people that didn't say no or hell no when asked.
I don't know whether or not your post served a double purpose at ticking off the crowd that already needs very little excuse to reach for the white-supremacist button on their keyboard. It's probably a bad idea. Martyrdom on the internet is cheap. I'm sure there's other forums or websites that have the patience and staff to force substantive disagreements to the front and nasty ad hominem and straw men to the back.
|
On March 29 2026 04:21 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 12:22 baal wrote:On March 28 2026 11:59 dyhb wrote: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. I said you were inviting it given what you know about who's going to be reading your post. If you can't see it through a leftist lens, or globally a European center-right to leftist lens, then you just don't know your audience. It's not good for a writer to be ignorant of his audience. Oh yeah, I can see it through multiple lenses. I can also see that you could good-faith intend it as lamenting the fall of better debate from a better-moderated website. I partially agree, but it's not like TL will be a bulwark against the broader societal collapse of civilized political debate best represented by who was most recently elected President. They just don't have the volunteer moderator staff and diversity of moderator political beliefs to accomplish that if they tried. I read back in the website moderation thread: they've got the last people that didn't say no or hell no when asked. I don't know whether or not your post served a double purpose at ticking off the crowd that already needs very little excuse to reach for the white-supremacist button on their keyboard. It's probably a bad idea. Martyrdom on the internet is cheap. I'm sure there's other forums or websites that have the patience and staff to force substantive disagreements to the front and nasty ad hominem and straw men to the back.
Generally we're not politically aligned, but I do think we're aligned regarding communication. I think baal's approach is more about the fight than the truth and that's lamentable, but I do think it's also fair to call out that a bunch of the left-leaning posters can and do get a bit monochromatic about issues. That's why I appreciate right-leaning posters such as Introvert and (parts of) baal that are willing to represent some of the gray of the issue... I just wish baal wasn't moronic about it.
|
I try to keep an open mind. I will read any source you deem supports your argument. But I do need compelling evidence to change my mind.
|
On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense? Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence. If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist". One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence.
This is fun.
That you I believe:
On October 16 2025 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2025 19:12 pmh wrote:
The democrats should stop focussing on the wrong things as distractions. They are beeing played like crazy.
Its easy to recognize the wrong things. Its what is most upvoted on the reddit politics forum and what is pushed artificially as centre of attention.
The epstein case in general , the ice stuff and now this nazi group chat which has at least 3-4 threads with botted upvotes on the reddit politics forum.
Its also easy to recognize the right things for the democrats to focus on. Its what has only 1 thread on reddit politics forum with little upvotes. Or its news which is even completely banned from discussing on the reddit politics forum while still clearly relevant (like all journalists walking out of the pentagon today. Which has zero threads on reddit politics forum).
Nazi group chat really. Is that what will turn public opinion? Trudeau has blackface pictures released nothing happend. Its not what the centre cares about.
The "left" needs to win over the centre. They will never get anywhere without the centre.
That is why all journalists walking out of pentagon is banned from discussion on reddit politics forum. Because it apeals to the centre,it is something the centre can get angry about.
That is also why ice and epstein is pushed on reddit poltics forum. Because the centre is not to unhappy in general with what ice claims to be doing,getting criminal illegals out. The centre also is not bussy with epstein which is basicly 3 year old news recycled and something that apeals to conspiracy theorists.
Its a lost case either way but still.
I don't think that it's necessarily "wrong" to point out that Trump allegedly raped children, that people are being attacked and abducted by an American gestapo, and that Republicans are racist and fascist... as long as other points are also being made (e.g., that the Republicans have shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans). As long as a diverse number of topics are being covered (healthcare, living wages, taxes, education, etc.), then I don't mind also including the three you dismissed. Assuming your assertion about needing to win over the center is true, why do you think the center doesn't care about those three issues you listed?
That also you:
On November 28 2018 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:So I believe it might be worth reporting because the “OK” symbol has nothing to do with products being made in America. It recently has become a low key way people to show support for “White Power” and racism in general. Due to that, I don’t think taking that ticker in good faith is a smart move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_(gesture)#As_white_power_symbol I see, thank you! I'm also aware of it used in "the circle game" where if you make the sign below your waist and someone else looks at it, you get to punch them. Perhaps we should be proactive and start punching people that make this sign, just in case they're playing the circle game they're white supremacists. + Show Spoiler +I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit.
spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit."
That also you but from now closed topic so cant quote properly:
"His first amendment right to freedom of speech was obviously not violated just because he got assaulted by a random guy. Congress/ the federal government isn't part of the assault scenario. He got assaulted and what the assaulter did is illegal; if he were found, he'd be arrested. And he should be. But as far as whether or not people agree morally with punching a Nazi in the mouth... well, let's just say that both Captain America and Indiana Jones did it too, and surely people shouldn't be surprised that he was punched. I'd rather have a dialogue with the guy than punch him, but not everyone can control their anger against incendiary, toxic people. Also, his hate wasn't directed at me, so it's harder for me to relate to the kind of anger felt by those who are targeted, systemically oppressed, and constantly viewed as inferior."
Dont take me wrong, it is just that for some it may seem that first you arguing that it is good to punch a "some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit" , or taking "proactive stance" if you prefer to phrase it that way, and then encouraged people to call republicans (which I believe is 50+kk people in US) racists and fascists, and make sure to mix it up with other stuff, to make it look okay.
On March 29 2026 00:35 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
It is good that you disagreeing, because it opens discussion. Now I'll try to explain where you got it wrong. Which is back to what freedom of speech means. lets go with your analogy to comedy club. Somebody makes fun of him in his club and got banned from there (depending on the advertising it is kinda shitty, however I dont recall Musk saying you can say whatever you want on Twitter you wont be banned). Now this person goes to the club on the other side of the road and keeps making fun of him, and he leaves this person alone. Doesnt send police, doesnt sue, just ignore. This is what free speech is. Private person can act over what you say, but government shouldnt be able to.
He’s said many, many similar things though, sure not those exact, exact words perhaps. There’s also a wider issue here, which is namely that some of these platforms are so large, embedded and without particularly meaningful competition that they wield a hell of a lot of potential power. Should such platforms have to adopt certain standards, or perhaps citizens across the globe should have some ‘digital rights’? Hey perhaps that is a good direction of travel, or perhaps one may not and want to let the market decide. Now that problem isn’t remotely an exclusively Musk thing, we’ve seen this play out in many different places. Just a rather obvious example of it. I mean the guy didn’t even couch some actions in rules or terms of service violations, it simply was things he personally disliked in many instances. It ain’t good fam. My concern is that many of the folks banging on about free speech and the looney left for the past 15 years have gone rather quiet lately when there’s plenty of examples of what they were complaining about, from both private actors and the state, right there front and centre. Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
It really isnt. second part of your sentence simply makes you reasonable person, as only fools have no doubts. Did they? Because from what I have seen other posters for few pages feverishly argued that baal is wrong because count whatever wasn't jailed, but only fined, without realising that issue is whether police/court should get involved at all.
Baal was incorrect though. I’d agree that there’s a wider discussion that did get a bit buried in arguing that specific point. That said, it did happen and opinions did vary. I certainly recall myself and Drone arguing against state censure in this instance, possibly others did too. Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
Preconceptions? like, really? We are both on this forum long enough. from what I recall inciting violence through speech is something you are against? (my position is "direct" incitement of violence is free speech infringement I am willing to tolerate). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
I mean, I wonder why that could be eh? At least within here it strikes me that folks are criticised more for bad arguments, or for holding specific positions, rather than specifically for being right leaning. And GH gets plenty of flak, more than basically anyone and is rather left wing A preconception that some in here are out to curtail free speech or whatever and then arguing from that place. Versus what I think is the case in this thread broadly where people generally wish to preserve free speech, but at a time there are big challenges to the structure of our societies by certain aspects of it. I think people use such terms way, way too liberally at times for sure, although I wouldn’t consider them direct incitements to violence or anything like that
First part: I am not here to defend Musk, just pointed out the difference between free speech, as in keeping government out of it, and free speech as in everyone can say whatever they want and everyone has to be fine with that. With the former I am in full agreement with the latter not so much.
As for platforms with a lot of power I already agreed with you on that one, it is just our solutions are different. I think your stance is given away by "adopt certain standards" which I believe mean you would like to see some regulations in a style: you cant have that, you should correct that. Sad truth is that this sort of solution would give more power to government and this platforms. My solution (you can either moderate, or be accountable, but no both) takes away power from this platforms. As such I believe my solution is better (funnily enough I also think this is what everyone happen to think "my solution is better" )
Part 2: Yeah he was, but what does that matter? Everyone knew what his point was, but decided to nitpick, on quite frankly, irrelevant bullshit, if thats not arguing in bad faith I dont know what is. And yes some people did engage honestly, but their post were drowned in bunch of irrelevant stuff, so i guess goal achieved...
Part 3: This one is fun:
"I mean, I wonder why that could be eh? At least within here it strikes me that folks are criticised more for bad arguments, or for holding specific positions, rather than specifically for being right leaning."
And this specific positions, are they right or left leaning? 
" And GH gets plenty of flak, more than basically anyone and is rather left wing"
So the guy who is leftist, but doesnt sign up to approved narrative is your example? Let me get this clear, guy on the left, who happened to have his own views on what left should be doing is getting a lot of flak? Surely it is not evidence of "one approved narrative"?
"A preconception that some in here are out to curtail free speech or whatever and then arguing from that place. Versus what I think is the case in this thread broadly where people generally wish to preserve free speech, but at a time there are big challenges to the structure of our societies by certain aspects of it.
I think people use such terms way, way too liberally at times for sure, although I wouldn’t consider them direct incitements to violence or anything like that"
"Broadly" is such a useful word isnt it? Broadly speaking all animals are equal, but bear is more equal.
What is your position on misinformation, disinformation, or, what is funny word used to hide inconvenient truths? Malinformation, was it?
Edit: @Wombat thank you for mentioning Drone I remembered I need to answer to him, it will be separate post though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/rKY7cvm4/asdfg1111.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/v2/25KZ5LQQGZGF3LD3SF3I4AMXBY.jpg?auth=1b07bf4d0a350e6b88ca852cabe726bacaf8b92409cd2e80b0c4cfda0b1dfe83&width=1200)
