US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5613

While skimming Trump's truth for new Iran content I found this.

I told them, if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem.

On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:


This is fun.

That you I believe:



That also you:



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.




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.

On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:

Point 1:
Fair enough if that’s your position. This isn’t the position of the many I was alluding to, but it’s unfair to lump you in with those of different beliefs. There’s a reason it’s called ‘cancel culture’ and not ‘cancelled by the government’ after all.

I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols.

If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots.

I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem.


Point 2:
It may seem like nitpicking, I think sometimes the details are important if an argument springs from the details. To a degree I think doubling down also just leads to unproductive loops, when perhaps the idea itself merits discussion. Which I did say at the time.


Point 3:
What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example.

Then you’ve got a bunch of stuff I just think is wrong, but ‘agree to disagree’ wrong, and there’s no real moral component there for me.

Get to category three, well that’s stuff I do think I have a more high ground on. Bumming Trump, defending something one was massively against a week ago, defending things like ICE shootings.

Yeah I’ll judge folks there, but it’s not because they’re right wing. A small government guy should be as opposed to Trump and ICE as I am, to take one example.

There’s also just thread dynamics. Person A comes in and just discusses things, and sure there might be friction, it’s only natural. Person B goes all out to ‘own the libs’. They might have the same actual views but Person A will be treated much better than Person B.

The Person B archetype swings in, posts like trash and then complains that they’re treated as such. But the problem there is that, not broader ideology

On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:

Point 3:
What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example.

On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:


"I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols."

There is couple of issues with this solution, 1st one "voluntarily" it simply means they can drop it on a whim. Second -obviously they are going to do it, it is like their wet dream, this is actually entire source of their power. This is what gives them aility to elevate opinions they like and bury ones they dont.

"If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots.

I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem."

So you are pro regulation in this case. Agreed framework never going to happen on it, as different countries have different laws and cultures. Quatar probably wont be ok with criticizing royal family or Islam, Germany would still want to fine people for offending politicians, Starmer would have a stroke if he found out that he cant arrest people for saying we love bacon, and can you imagine liberals in US if they were suddenly told that they are going to pay fines for offending politicians (particularly orange buffoons). To be fair US response would be probably the same across the political spectrum, at east while Trump is in charge.

And who would decide what is "misinformation"? Notwithstanding that todays misinformation may be truth tomorrow, would you be really happy with Trump government deciding whats misinformation?

As for algorithmic funnel I agree, I simply see algorithm as a part of moderation, because this is its realistic effect. Thats why section 230 is rubbish and needs to go.



Why would your positions sit uneasily with your worldview? Your positions are part of your worldview, where the uneasiness comes from? Why say "my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview" rather than "my worldview" why describe positions as left/right, rather than yours?

On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:


"I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols."

There is couple of issues with this solution, 1st one "voluntarily" it simply means they can drop it on a whim. Second -obviously they are going to do it, it is like their wet dream, this is actually entire source of their power. This is what gives them aility to elevate opinions they like and bury ones they dont.

"If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots.

I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem."

So you are pro regulation in this case. Agreed framework never going to happen on it, as different countries have different laws and cultures. Quatar probably wont be ok with criticizing royal family or Islam, Germany would still want to fine people for offending politicians, Starmer would have a stroke if he found out that he cant arrest people for saying we love bacon, and can you imagine liberals in US if they were suddenly told that they are going to pay fines for offending politicians (particularly orange buffoons). To be fair US response would be probably the same across the political spectrum, at east while Trump is in charge.

And who would decide what is "misinformation"? Notwithstanding that todays misinformation may be truth tomorrow, would you be really happy with Trump government deciding whats misinformation?

As for algorithmic funnel I agree, I simply see algorithm as a part of moderation, because this is its realistic effect. Thats why section 230 is rubbish and needs to go.



Why would your positions sit uneasily with your worldview? Your positions are part of your worldview, where the uneasiness comes from? Why say "my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview" rather than "my worldview" why describe positions as left/right, rather than yours?

On March 31 2026 08:10 Razyda wrote:



curing covid with bleach is not misinformation issue it is stupidity issue.

On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:


Sometimes misinformation is just misinformation, like when trump said you could cure COVID with bleach.

No one is advocating for a government department of censorship. Just some regulation about the content. For example, I'd be cool with any law that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice like "don't have medical professionals around when you're giving birth".

On March 31 2026 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:

It's both.