On March 31 2026 15:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 08:10 Razyda wrote:On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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: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: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: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 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. 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 "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. 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.
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? 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". First of all curing covid with bleach is not misinformation issue it is stupidity issue. Past that: you do realise that what you want "I'd be cool with any law that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice" would result in outlawing antibleachers? Because, you know, if official stance is "cure covid with bleach" and you advocating against it, you actually killing people and should be outlawed? Both you and dydh are making the same trivial argument as far as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong (I mean trivial in the mathematical sense, not in the unimportant sense): We can't have new laws because your political opponents will abuse them. This is a trivial argument because you can apply that line of reasoning to any new (or already existing) law. Essentially, it's not really about free speech, it's about enforcement and corruption, which kind of falls under the umbrella of "small government" arguments. I must admit that arguing about what's the optimum "size" of the government is not a discussion I want to get into, so if this is your position, then I will just leave it here.
You are partially wrong. It is not that we cannot have new laws, it is that new laws shouldnt be invitation to abuse them. For example "posting word balloon online will get you outlawed" while rather unreasonable is somewhat precise, "Posting misinformation online will get you outlawed" is not, because it is basically carte blanche for someone to fill as they please.
On March 31 2026 10:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 08:45 Razyda wrote:On March 31 2026 08:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 31 2026 08:10 Razyda wrote:On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote: [quote]
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: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: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: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 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. 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 "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. 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.
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? 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". if official stance is "cure covid with bleach" and you advocating against it, you actually killing people and should be outlawed? How are you defining "official stance"? By whom? If ingesting bleach truly helped cure covid and had relatively minor side effects, then that would be interesting, but that's not the reality we live in. I would definitely look to the scientific and medical consensus of actual experts instead of preferring Trump's hot takes. Really? step by step then: Republicans have no spine and all they do is Trump bidding Trump says bleach cures covid They pass the law " that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice" Only scientific and medical consensus available to you is that bleach cures covid, because all the assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice (like the conspiracy theorist claiming that bleach does not cure covid) are outlawed. After looking into scientific and medical consensus, you do responsible thing and cure covid with bleach. GL HF. Edit: On March 31 2026 08:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 31 2026 08:19 Razyda wrote:On March 31 2026 08:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 31 2026 08:10 Razyda wrote:On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:[quote] This is fun. That you I believe: [quote] That also you: [quote] 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. [quote] 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. 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 "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. 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.
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? 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". curing covid with bleach is not misinformation issue it is stupidity issue. It's both. No. Yes. "Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong." https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/misinformation-disinformation It is factually inaccurate to claim that ingesting bleach cures covid, objectively making it misinformation. Calling something stupid is a little more subjective and slippery, but I'm happy to agree with you on that label too. You incorrectly identified source of disagreement. It is not what the disinformation is, it is what the issue is. For your first response: The rest of us are discussing the pros and cons of hypothetical censorship of dangerous lies in favor of supporting the truth, but you're responding based on hypothetical political motivations that are arbitrarily choosing to enforce fake news and censor facts. You're building off an entirely different premise, which is fine and interesting on its own but is derailing the current conversation and can't be used as a refutation (because our axioms are different). For your second response: I don't know what that means, but if you have a problem with the definition of "misinformation", feel free to argue with dictionaries.
So in discussing pros and cons, pointing out a con is derailing conversation?
PS: lol mere couple of days and it feels so off topic now...
|
United States43803 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [transcript] +EVERYONE ALL OVER THE WORLD. AFTER REBUILDING OUR MILITARY DURING MY FIRST TERM, WE HAVE BY FAR THE STRONGEST MILITARY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, AND NOW WE'RE WORKING ALONG WITH VENEZUELA AND OUR JOINT VENTURE PARTNERS. WE'RE GETTING ALONG INCREDIBLY WELL IN THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF OIL AND GAS. THE SECOND LARGEST RESERVES AFTER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE'RE NOW TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE MIDDLE EAST, AND YET WE ARE THERE TO HELP. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE. WE DON'T NEED THEIR OIL. WE DON'T NEED ANYTHING WE HAVE, BUT WE'RE THERE TO HELP OUR ALLIES. TONIGHT I WANT TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS OUR WARRIORS HAVE MADE IN IRAN AND DISCUSS WHY ERATION OF THE THEORY IS NECESSARY FOR THE SAFETY OF AMERICA AND THE SECURITY OF THE FREE WORLD FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY I ANNOUNCED MY CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2015, I HAVE VOWED THAT I WOULD NEVER ALLOW IRAN TO HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. THIS FANATICAL REGIME HAS BEEN CHANTING DEATH TO AMERICA, DEATH TO ISRAEL FOR 47 YEARS. THEIR PROXIES WERE BEHIND THE MURDER OF 241 AMERICANS IN THE MARINES -- AND HUNDREDS OF OUR -- THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE ATTACK ON THE USS COLE, AND THEY CARRIED OUT THE COUNTLESS OTHER HEINOUS ACTS, INCLUDING THE HORRIBLE, BLOODY ATROCITIES OF OCTOBER 7th IN ISRAEL, SOMETHING THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. THIS MURDEROUS REGIME ALSO RECENTLY KILLED 45,000 OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE WHO WERE PROTESTING IN IRAN. 45,000 DEAD FOR THESE TERRORISTS TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD BE INTOLERABLE THREAT. THE MOST VIOLENT AND THUGGISH REGIME ON EARTH WOULD BE FREE TO CARRY OUT THEIR CAMPAIGNS OF TERROR, COERCION, CONQUESTS, AND MASS MURDER FROM BEHIND A NUCLEAR SHIELD. I WILL NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN, AND NEITHER SHOULD ANY OF OUR PAST PRESIDENTS. THE SITUATION HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 47 YEARS, AND SHOULD'VE BEEN HANDLED LONG BEFORE I ARRIVED IN OFFICE. I DID MANY THINGS DURING MY TWO TERMS IN OFFICE TO STOP THE QUEST FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS BY IRAN FIRST, AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, I KILLED GENERAL -- IN MY FIRST TERM. HE WAS AN EVIL GENIUS, BRILLIANT PERSON, A HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING, HOWEVER. THE FATHER OF THE ROADSIDE BOMB. AND HE LIVED, JUST HORRIBLE WHAT HE DID. IRAN WOULD'VE BEEN PERHAPS IN FAR BETTER, STRONGER POSITION. HE HAD LIVED, WE WOULD'VE PROBABLY HAD A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION TONIGHT, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'D STILL BE WINNING, AND WINNING BIG. AND THEN VERY IMPORTANTLY, I TERMINATED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL AND A RAN DISASTER. OBAMA GAVE THEM 1.7 BILLION DOLLARS IN CASH, GREEN, GREEN CASH. TOOK IT OUT OF THANKS FROM VIRGINIA, D.C., AND MARYLAND. ALL THE CASH THEY HAD, FLEW IT BY AIRPLANES IN AN ATTEMPT TO BUY THEIR RESPECT AND LOYALTY, AND IT DIDN'T WORK. THEY LAUGHED AT OUR PRESIDENT AND WENT ON WITH THEIR MISSION TO HAVE A NUCLEAR BOMB. HIS IRAN DEAL WOULD'VE LED TO A COLOSSAL ARSENAL MASSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR IRAN. IT WOULD HAVE HAD THEM YEARS AGO, AND THEY WOULD'VE USED THEM. WOULD'VE BEEN A DIFFERENT WORLD. THERE WOULD'VE BEEN NO MIDDLE EAST AND NO ISRAEL RIGHT NOW, IN MY OPINION, THE OPINION OF A LOT OF GREAT EXPERTS, HAD I NOT TERMINATED THAT TERRIBLE DEAL. I WAS SO HONORED TO DO IT. I WAS SO PROUD TO DO IT. IT WAS SO BAD RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. ESSENTIALLY, I DID WHAT NO OTHER PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO DO. THEY MADE MISTAKES, AND I AM CORRECTING THEM. MY FIRST PREFERENCE WAS ALWAYS THE PATH OF DIPLOMACY AT THE REGIME CONTINUED THEIR RELENTLESS QUEST FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND REJECTED EVERY ATTEMPT AT, AT AGREEMENT. FOR THIS REASON, IN JUNE, I ORDERED A STRIKE ON IRAN'S KEY NUCLEAR FACILITIES, IN OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER. NOBODY'S EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. THOSE BEAUTIFUL B-2 BOMBERS PERFORMED MAGNIFICENTLY. WE TOTALLY OBLITERATED THOSE NUCLEAR SITES. THE REGIME THEN SOUGHT TO REBUILD THAT NUCLEAR PROGRAM AT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR MAKING CLEAR THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF ABANDONING THEIR PURSUIT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THEY WERE ALSO RAPIDLY BUILDING A VAST STOCKPILE OF CONVENTIONAL BALLISTIC MISSILES, AND WOULD SOON HAVE HAD MISSILES THAT COULD REACH THE AMERICAN HOMELAND, EUROPE, AND VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER PLACE ON EARTH. I RUN STRATEGY WAS SO OBVIOUS. THEY WANTED TO PRODUCE AS MANY MISSILES AS POSSIBLE, AND THEY DID, WITH THE LONGEST RANGE POSSIBLE, AND THEY HAD SOME WEAPONS THAT NOBODY BELIEVED THEY HAD. WE JUST LEARNED THAT. WE TOOK THEM OUT, WE TOOK THEM ALOUT, SO THAT NO ONE WOULD REALLY DARE STOP THEM, IN THEIR RACE FOR A NUCLEAR BOMB, A NUCLEAR WEAPON, A NUCLEAR WEAPON LIKE NOBODY'S EVER SEEN BEFORE. THEY WERE RIGHT AT THE DOORSTEP. FOR YEARS, EVERYONE HAS SAID THAT IRAN CANNOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BUT IN THE END, THOSE ARE JUST WORDS IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO TAKE ACTION ONE THE TIME COMES. AS I STATED IN MY ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPERATION EPIC FURY , OUR OBJECTIVES ARE VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR. WE ARE SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLING THE REGIME'S ABILITY TO THREATEN AMERICA OR PROJECT POWER OUTSIDE OF THEIR BORDERS. THAT MEANS ELIMINATING IRAN'S NAVY , WHICH IS NOW ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED. HURTING THEIR AIR FORCE AND THEIR MISSILE PROGRAM AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, AND ANNIHILATING THEIR DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE. WE'VE DONE ALL OF THAT. THEIR NAVY IS GONE, THEIR AIR FORCE IS GONE, THEIR MISSILES ARE JUST ABOUT USED UP OR BEATEN. TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE ACTIONS WILL CRIPPLE IRAN MILITARY , CRUSH THEIR ABILITY TO SUPPORT TERRORIST PROXIES, AND DENY THEM THE ABILITY TO BUILD A NUCLEAR BOMB. OUR ARMED FORCES HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARY. THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT MILITARILY. EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT, AND TONIGHT, I'M PLEASED TO SAY THAT THESE CORE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ARE NEARING COMPLETION AS WE CELEBRATE THIS PROGRESS, WE THINK ESPECIALLY OF THE 13 AMERICAN WARRIORS WHO HAVE LAID DOWN THEIR LIVES IN THIS FIGHT TO PREVENT OUR CHILDREN FROM EVER HAVING TO FACE A NUCLEAR IRAN . TWICE THIS PAST MONTH, I HAVE TRAVELED TO DOVER AIR FORCE BASE AND IT'S BEEN SOMETHING I WAWANTED TOBE WITH THOSE HEROES AS THEY RETURNED TO AMERICAN SOIL, AND I WAS WITH THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR PARENTS, THEIR WIVES, HUSBANDS. WE SALUTE THEM, AND NOW WE MUST HONOR THEM BY COMPLETING THE MISSION FOR WHICH THEY GAVE THEIR LIVES, AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PEOPLE, THEIR LOVED ONE SAID, PLEASE, SIR, PLEASE FINISH THE JOB. EVERY ONE OF THEM. AND WE ARE GOING TO FINISH THE JOB, AND WE'RE GOING TO FINISH IT VERY FAST. WE'RE GETTING VERY CLOSE. I WANT TO THANK OUR ALLIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, ISRAEL, SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR, THE UAE, KUWAIT, AND BAHRAIN. THEY'VE BEEN GREAT, AND WE WILL NOT LET THEM GET HURT OR FAIL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. MANY AMERICANS HAVE BEEN CONCERNED TO SEE THE RECENT RISE IN GASOLINEPRICES HERE AT HOME. THIS SHORT-TERM INCREASE HAS BEEN ENTIRELY THE RESULT OF THE IRANIAN REGIME LAUNCHING DERANGED TERROR ATTACKS AGAINST COMMERCIAL OIL TANKERS IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONFLICT. THIS IS YET MORE PROOF THAT IRAN CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THEY WILL USE THEM, AND THEY WILL USE THEM QUICKLY. IT WOULD LEAD TO DECADES OF EXTORTION, ECONOMIC PAIN AND INSTABILITY WORSE THAN WE CAN EVER IMAGINE. THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER PREPARED ECONOMICALLY TO CONFRONT THIS THREAT. YOU ALL KNOW THAT. WE BUILT THE STRONGEST ECONOMY IN HISTORY. WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT RIGHT NOW, THE STRONGEST IN HISTORY. IN ONE YEAR, WE'VE TAKEN A DEAD AND CRIPPLED COUNTRY, I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT WE WERE DEAD AND CRIPPLED COUNTRY AFTER THE LAST ADMINISTRATION, AND MADE IT THE HOTTEST COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BY FAR WITH NO INFLATION, RECORD-SETTING INVESTMENTS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES, OVER $18 TRILLION, AND THE HIGHEST STOCK MARKET EVER, WITH 53 ALL-TIME RECORD HIGHS IN JUST ONE YEAR. IT ALL POSITIONED US TO GET RID OF A CANCER THAT HAS LONG SIMMERED. IT'S KNOWN AS THE NUCLEAR IRAN , AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS COMING. THEY NEVER IMAGINED IT. REMEMBER, BECAUSE OF OUR DRILL, BABY, DRILL PROGRAM, AMERICA HAS PLENTY OF GAS. WE HAD SO MUCH GAS UNDER MY LEADERSHIP, WE ARE NUMBER ONE PRODUCER OF OIL AND GAS ON THE PLANET WITHOUT EVEN DISCUSSING THE MILLIONS OF BARRELS THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM VENEZUELA BECAUSE OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES, WE PRODUCED MORE OIL AND GAS THAN SAUDI ARABIA AND RUSSIA COMBINED. THINK OF THAT. SAUDI ARABIA AND RUSSIA COMBINED. AND THAT NUMBER WILL SOON BE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE, THERE'S NO COUNTRY LIKE US ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, AND WE'RE IN GREAT SHAPE FOR THE FUTURE. THE UNITED STATES IMPORTS ALMOST NO OIL THROUGH THE HORMUZ STRAIT, AND WON'T BE TAKING ANY IN THE FUTURE. WE DON'T NEED IT. WE HAVEN'T NEEDED IT, AND WE DON'T NEED IT. WE'VE BEATEN AND COMPLETELY DECIMATED IRAN . THEY ARE DECIMATED, BOTH MILITARILY AND ECONOMICALLY AND IN EVERY OTHER WAY. AND THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD THAT DO RECEIVE OIL THROUGH THE HORMUZ STRAIT MUST TAKE CARE OF THAT PASSAGE. THEY MUST CHERISH IT. THEY MUST GRAB IT AND CHERISH IT. THEY CAN DO IT EASILY. WE WILL BE HELPFUL, BUT THEY SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD IN PROTECTING THE OIL THAT THEY SO DESPERATELY DEPEND ON. SO TO THOSE COUNTRIES THAT CAN'T GET FUEL, MANY OF WHICH REFUSE TO GET INVOLVED IN THE DECAPITATION OF IRAN, WE HAD TO DO IT OURSELVES. I HAVE A SUGGESTION. NUMBER ONE, BY OIL FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE HAVE PLENTY. WE HAVE SO MUCH. AND NUMBER TWO, BUILD UP SOME DELAYED COURAGE SHOULD'VE DONE IT BEFORE, SHOULD'VE DONE IT WITH US AS WE ASKED. GO TO THE STRAIGHT AND JUST TAKE IT. PROTECT IT. USE IT FOR YOURSELVES. IRAN HAS BEEN ESSENTIALLY DECIMATED. THE HARD PART IS DONE, SO IT SHOULD BE EASY. AND IN ANY EVENT, WHEN THIS CONFLICT IS OVER, THE STRAIT WILL OPEN UP NATURALLY. JUST OPEN UP NATURALLY. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO BE ABLE TO SELL OIL, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO TRY AND REBUILD. IT WILL RESUME THE FLOWING, AND THE GAS PRICES WILL RAPIDLY COME BACK DOWN, STOCK PRICES WILL RAPIDLY GO BACK UP. THEY HAVEN'T COME DOWN VERY MUCH, FRANKLY. THEY CAME DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY'VE HAD SOME VERY GOOD DAYS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. WE'VE DONE, TUALLY, MUCH BETTER THAN I THOUGHT, BUT WE HAD TO TAKE THAT LITTLE JOURNEY TO IRAN TO GET RID OF THIS HORRIBLE THREAT. WITH OUR HISTORIC TAX CUTS, WHERE PEOPLE ARE JUST NOW TALKING ABOUT RECEIVING LARGER REFUNDS THAN THEY EVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE, THEY ARE GETTING SO MUCH MORE MONEY THAN THEY THOUGHT FROM THE GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL. OUR ECONOMY IS STRONG AND IMPROVING BY THE DAY, AND IT WILL SOON BE ROARING BACK LIKE NEVER BEFORE. IT WILL TOP THE LEVEL THAT IT WAS A MONTH AGO. I'VE MADE CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING OF OPERATION EPIC FURY THAT WE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL OUR OBJECTIVES ARE FULLY ACHIEVED. THANKS TO THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE, I CAN SAY TONIGHT THAT WE ARE ON TRACK TO COMPLETE ALL OF AMERICA'S MILITARY OBJECTIVES SHORTLY, VERY SHORTLY. WE'RE GOING TO HIT THEM EXTREMELY HARD OVER THE NEXT TWO TO THREE WEEKS. WE'RE GOING TO BRING THEM BACK TO THE STONE AGES WHERE THEY BELONG. IN THE MEANTIME, DISCUSSIONS ARE ONGOING. REGIME CHANGE WAS NOT OUR GOAL. WE NEVER SAID REGIME CHANGE, BUT REGIME CHANGE HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE OF ALL OF THEIR ORIGINAL LEADERS DEATH. THEY'RE ALL DEAD. THE NEW GROUP IS LESS RADICAL AND MUCH MORE REASONABLE. YET, IF DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, NO DEAL IS MADE, WE HAVE OUR EYES ON KEY TARGETS. IF THERE'S NO DEAL, WE ARE GOING TO HIT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEIR ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS VERY HARD AND PROBABLY SIMULTANEOUSLY. WE HAVE NOT HIT THEIR OIL, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S THE EASIEST TARGET OF ALL, BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT GIVE THEM EVEN A SMALL CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR REBUILDING, BUT WE COULD HIT IT, AND IT WOULD BE GONE, AND THERE'S NOT A THING THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT. THEY HAVE NO ANTIAIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT. THEIR RADAR IS 100% ANNIHILATED. WE ARE UNSTOPPABLE AS A MILITARY FORCE. E NUCLEAR SITES THAT WE OBLITERATED WITH THE B-2 BOMBERS HAVE BEEN HIT SO HARD THAT IT WOULD TAKE MONTHS TO GET NEAR THE NUCLEAR DUST, AND WE HAVE IT UNDER INTENSE SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL. IF WE SEE THEM MAKE A MOVE, EVEN A MOVE FOR IT, WE'LL HIT THEM WITH MISSILES VERY HARD AGAIN. WE HAVE ALL THE CARDS. THEY HAVE NONE. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THIS CONFLICT IN PERSPECTIVE. AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN WORLD WAR I LASTED ONE YEAR, SEVEN MONTHS, AND FIVE DAYS. WORLD WAR II LASTED FOR THREE YEARS, EIGHT MONTHS, AND 25 DAYS. THE KOREAN WAR LASTED FOR THREE YEARS, ONE MONTH, AND TWO DAYS. THE VIETNAM WAR LASTED FOR 19 YEARS, FIVE MONTHS, AND 29 DAYS. IRAQ WENT ON FOR EIGHT YEARS, EIGHT MONTHS, AND 28 DAYS . WE ARE IN THIS MILITARY OPERATION SO POWERFUL, SO BRILLIANT AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRIES FOR 32 DAYS, AND THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN EVISCERATED AND ESSENTIALLY IS REALLY NO LONGER A THREAT. THEY WERE THE BULLY, THE MIDDLE EAST, BUT THEY'RE THE BULLY NO LONGER. THIS IS A TRUE INVESTMENT IN YOUR CHILDREN, IN YOUR GRANDCHILDREN'S FUTURE. THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING, AND THEY CAN'T BELIEVE THE POWER, STRENGTH, AND BRILLIANCE. THEY JUST CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY'RE SEEING. THEY LEAVE IT TO YOUR IMAGINATION, THEY CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. THE BRILLIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. TONIGHT EVERY AMERICAN CAN LOOK FORWARD TO A DAY WHEN WE ARE FINALLY FREE FROM THE WICKEDNESS OF IRANIAN AGGRESSION AND THE SPECTER OF NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL. BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS WE HAVE TAKEN, WE ARE ON THE CUSP OF ENDING IRAN'S SINISTER THREAT TO AMERICA AND THE WORLD, AND I'LL TELL YOU, THE WORLD IS WATCHING, AND WHEN WE DO, WHEN IT'S ALL OVER, THE UNITED STATES WILL BE SAFER, STRONGER, MORE PROSPEROUS, AND GREATER THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN BEFORE. MAY GOD BLESESTHE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, AND MAY GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND GOOD NIGHT
|