|
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 |
As crazy as you think Russian interference is, I'd hope we could agree that claiming George Soros rigged Arizona elections is much crazier.
Which is what one of the currently top threads on T_D is about. Granted, it is reporting on GOP actions so it's not purely (Reddit) crazies peddling crazy.
|
On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index.
Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org
|
On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org
Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry.
|
On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry.
If we say stuff it's our opinion so it can be discarded, if we link to stuff it's an appeal to authority so it can be discarded.
How do we win, exactly?
|
On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry.
Or maybe if you're going to have a totally different opinion to even your peers on how "free" different countries are, at least acknowledge that it's *you* who is dicking around with semantical shenanigans.
Anyway, you're wrong. You can have the government forbid certain classes of speech and be a free (and by extension, non-fascist) country. Don't know much about the freedom of speech laws in most of those countries, but Germany at least has quite strict limitations.
|
Why is it that whenever discussing freedom with American conservatives, its always limited to a few very narrow concepts:
1: The freedom to be a douchebag on the internet
2: The freedom of huge corporations to do whatever they want because money
3: The freedom to own deadly weapons
The whole discussion gets turned upside down when you start talking about the freedom to express yourself in a non conventional gender role or something.
Not that kind of freedom.
|
On November 12 2018 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:
Why is it that whenever discussing freedom with American conservatives, its always limited to a few very narrow concepts:
1: The freedom to be a douchebag on the internet
2: The freedom of huge corporations to do whatever they want because money
3: The freedom to own deadly weapons
The whole discussion gets turned upside down when you start talking about the freedom to express yourself in a non conventional gender role or something.
Not that kind of freedom.
Yeah, I noticed a distinct lack of 'we respect their freedom' when Antifa raised a ruckus at Tucker Carlson's family home. All they did was say mean words that triggered his family, after all, and rattled the doorknob a bit. No criminal damage has been reported. Seems to pass the freedom test from where I'm sitting!
It's arbitrary and as soon as you apply the ghostly parameters to different scenarios suddenly you get a lot of 'well obviously that's not okay's. I haven't seen many Conservatives defending the protestors confronting GOP guys in restaurants, either.
|
On November 12 2018 19:02 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:
Why is it that whenever discussing freedom with American conservatives, its always limited to a few very narrow concepts:
1: The freedom to be a douchebag on the internet
2: The freedom of huge corporations to do whatever they want because money
3: The freedom to own deadly weapons
The whole discussion gets turned upside down when you start talking about the freedom to express yourself in a non conventional gender role or something.
Not that kind of freedom. Yeah, I noticed a distinct lack of 'we respect their freedom' when Antifa raised a ruckus at Tucker Carlson's family home. All they did was say mean words that triggered his family, after all, and rattled the doorknob a bit. No criminal damage has been reported. Seems to pass the freedom test from where I'm sitting! It's arbitrary and as soon as you apply the ghostly parameters to different scenarios suddenly you get a lot of 'well obviously that's not okay's. I haven't seen many Conservatives defending the protestors confronting GOP guys in restaurants, either.
Raised a ruckus? What a comically inaccurate characterization of the events that took place there. They spray painted an Anarchy symbol on the ground in front of his house and threatened violence. That's literally one of the only things the first amendment does not protect you from.
|
On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry.
Appealing to actual authorities and experts (and especially citing the additional agreement from those who would normally be biased against an idea) is not a fallacy. In fact, it's absolutely sensible and strengthens one's argument. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is only when you're appealing to false authorities, i.e., some random, irrelevant person or group who doesn't study the subject making claims that are out of their area of expertise.
|
On November 12 2018 19:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry. Appealing to actual authorities and experts (and especially citing the additional agreement from those who would normally be biased against an idea) is not a fallacy. In fact, it's absolutely sensible and strengthens one's argument. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is only when you're appealing to false authorities, i.e., some random, irrelevant person or group who doesn't study the subject making claims that are out of their area of expertise.
I disagree that the alleged authority is an acceptable expert on the subject, so yes it is a fallacy.
|
On November 12 2018 19:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 19:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry. Appealing to actual authorities and experts (and especially citing the additional agreement from those who would normally be biased against an idea) is not a fallacy. In fact, it's absolutely sensible and strengthens one's argument. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is only when you're appealing to false authorities, i.e., some random, irrelevant person or group who doesn't study the subject making claims that are out of their area of expertise. I disagree that the alleged authority is an acceptable expert on the subject, so yes it is a fallacy.
What would be the criteria by which an organization would become an acceptable expert on a subject, in your opinion?
|
On November 12 2018 19:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 19:23 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 19:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry. Appealing to actual authorities and experts (and especially citing the additional agreement from those who would normally be biased against an idea) is not a fallacy. In fact, it's absolutely sensible and strengthens one's argument. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is only when you're appealing to false authorities, i.e., some random, irrelevant person or group who doesn't study the subject making claims that are out of their area of expertise. I disagree that the alleged authority is an acceptable expert on the subject, so yes it is a fallacy. What would be the criteria by which an organization would become an acceptable expert on a subject, in your opinion?
I'd have to do some research to find one, but CATO regularly spews nonsense defending illegal immigration so I definitely wouldn't start there.
|
On November 12 2018 19:38 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 19:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 12 2018 19:23 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 19:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry. Appealing to actual authorities and experts (and especially citing the additional agreement from those who would normally be biased against an idea) is not a fallacy. In fact, it's absolutely sensible and strengthens one's argument. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is only when you're appealing to false authorities, i.e., some random, irrelevant person or group who doesn't study the subject making claims that are out of their area of expertise. I disagree that the alleged authority is an acceptable expert on the subject, so yes it is a fallacy. What would be the criteria by which an organization would become an acceptable expert on a subject, in your opinion? I'd have to do some research to find one, but CATO regularly spews nonsense defending illegal immigration so I definitely wouldn't start there.
Yeah, if they disagree with you on one topic, they can't be experts. I get it.
|
On November 12 2018 19:43 korrekt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 19:38 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 19:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 12 2018 19:23 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 19:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers.
As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry. Appealing to actual authorities and experts (and especially citing the additional agreement from those who would normally be biased against an idea) is not a fallacy. In fact, it's absolutely sensible and strengthens one's argument. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is only when you're appealing to false authorities, i.e., some random, irrelevant person or group who doesn't study the subject making claims that are out of their area of expertise. I disagree that the alleged authority is an acceptable expert on the subject, so yes it is a fallacy. What would be the criteria by which an organization would become an acceptable expert on a subject, in your opinion? I'd have to do some research to find one, but CATO regularly spews nonsense defending illegal immigration so I definitely wouldn't start there. Yeah, if they disagree with you on one topic, they can't be experts. I get it.
The whole point of an appeal to authority argument is to assert that you are correct because X authority says you are correct. If I don't believe X authority then your argument is pointless.
|
At some point you're still supposed to demonstrate that they are wrong about the particular argument they're making in a way that is a little more developed than "I generally don't like them". Otherwise you can just state "The US is freedomland, we're number one" and we'll answer "We don't think that's true" and none of us are going to go anywhere. But hey at least we won't be appealing to authorities while we do it.
|
On November 12 2018 19:49 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 19:43 korrekt wrote:On November 12 2018 19:38 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 19:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 12 2018 19:23 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 19:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine.
2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person.
3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place?
4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well.
5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried.
6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry. Appealing to actual authorities and experts (and especially citing the additional agreement from those who would normally be biased against an idea) is not a fallacy. In fact, it's absolutely sensible and strengthens one's argument. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is only when you're appealing to false authorities, i.e., some random, irrelevant person or group who doesn't study the subject making claims that are out of their area of expertise. I disagree that the alleged authority is an acceptable expert on the subject, so yes it is a fallacy. What would be the criteria by which an organization would become an acceptable expert on a subject, in your opinion? I'd have to do some research to find one, but CATO regularly spews nonsense defending illegal immigration so I definitely wouldn't start there. Yeah, if they disagree with you on one topic, they can't be experts. I get it. The whole point of an appeal to authority argument is to assert that you are correct because X authority says you are correct. If I don't believe X authority then your argument is pointless.
Its not necessarily even an appeal to authority if the data they used to draw their conclusions in publicly available. I don't really know anything about CATO or their freedom index so I don't have an opinion on the subject except to say that you can appeal to data instead of appealing to authority alot of the time.
Freedom is a notoriously difficult thing to measure anyway, seeing as when some freedoms are given, they impact on the freedom of others.
I would suggest that a country with such a huge prison population as the US isn't particularly free, but its obviously more complicated than that.
|
On November 12 2018 19:53 Nebuchad wrote:
At some point you're still supposed to demonstrate that they are wrong about the particular argument they're making in a way that is a little more developed than "I generally don't like them". Otherwise you can just state "The US is freedomland, we're number one" and we'll answer "We don't think that's true" and none of us are going to go anywhere. But hey at least we won't be appealing to authorities while we do it.
Ok well the topic that led to an international freedom dick wagging contest was literally somebody telling me that we need to censor more in the US because other Western countries do it and they still have Democracy. I don't particularly care to invest my time into a dissertation on the matter.
|
On November 12 2018 20:00 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 19:53 Nebuchad wrote:
At some point you're still supposed to demonstrate that they are wrong about the particular argument they're making in a way that is a little more developed than "I generally don't like them". Otherwise you can just state "The US is freedomland, we're number one" and we'll answer "We don't think that's true" and none of us are going to go anywhere. But hey at least we won't be appealing to authorities while we do it. Ok well the topic that led to an international freedom dick wagging contest was literally somebody telling me that we need to censor more in the US because other Western countries do it and they still have Democracy. I don't particularly care to invest my time into a dissertation on the matter.
You were the one, that when confronted with the idea of a bit more control over media, just responded that "these countries are worse off for it", whiteout actually demonstrating that "these" countries are worse of for it or that "these" countries are actually less free. When confronted by data you were like "fuck data I got feelings/patriotism".
I also can't find the dick wagging contest you speak off, I see people disagreeing with you and you being unable to defend you claim.
|
On November 12 2018 20:08 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:00 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 19:53 Nebuchad wrote:
At some point you're still supposed to demonstrate that they are wrong about the particular argument they're making in a way that is a little more developed than "I generally don't like them". Otherwise you can just state "The US is freedomland, we're number one" and we'll answer "We don't think that's true" and none of us are going to go anywhere. But hey at least we won't be appealing to authorities while we do it. Ok well the topic that led to an international freedom dick wagging contest was literally somebody telling me that we need to censor more in the US because other Western countries do it and they still have Democracy. I don't particularly care to invest my time into a dissertation on the matter. You were the one, that when confronted with the idea of a bit more control over media, just responded that "these countries are worse off for it", whiteout actually demonstrating that "these" countries are worse of for it or that "these" countries are actually less free. When confronted by data you were like "fuck data I got feelings/patriotism". I also can't find the dick wagging contest you speak off, I see people disagreeing with you and you being unable to defend you claim.
"a bit more control over media" is a funny way of saying censor, but sure. I disagree fundamentally with the concept of censoring people just because you disagree with them. I don't care about some countries that some institute I disagree with says are more "free" based on their arbitrarily chosen metrics. I care about values that matter to me, such as the freedom to speak your mind without the thought police taking you away.
|
On November 12 2018 19:38 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 19:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 12 2018 19:23 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 19:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 12 2018 17:43 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. Are you kidding me? Even the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank through and through, ranks at least the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Estonia above the US on their Human Freedom Index. Edit: Forgot the link. www.cato.org Oh my bad. I should appeal to authorities more. Sorry. Appealing to actual authorities and experts (and especially citing the additional agreement from those who would normally be biased against an idea) is not a fallacy. In fact, it's absolutely sensible and strengthens one's argument. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is only when you're appealing to false authorities, i.e., some random, irrelevant person or group who doesn't study the subject making claims that are out of their area of expertise. I disagree that the alleged authority is an acceptable expert on the subject, so yes it is a fallacy. What would be the criteria by which an organization would become an acceptable expert on a subject, in your opinion? I'd have to do some research to find one, but CATO regularly spews nonsense defending illegal immigration so I definitely wouldn't start there.
Okay, lets try to be constructive! Please give a definition of freedom (other than the CATO one obviously) that we can attempt to measure national freedom by, seeing as you are the one positing that USA #1 and other countries are worse off, particularly due to their legal limitations on freedom of speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
