|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 12 2018 20:19 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:08 Velr wrote: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.
I also disagree fundamentally with censoring people because you disagree. I do agree with censoring "dangerous" speech. As for your second point, you should talk to GreenHorizons some time about his ability to speak his mind without the police interfering, and he's as American as can be.
You'd have to go to his US Megablog tho, he has self-banned himself from here.
|
But no one advocated for censoring someone simply based on disagreement. They advocated for shutting down a subreddit because it spreads harmful, often anti semetic conspiracy theories. That isn’t even censorship, since none of the members of the subreddit would be prohibited from posting elsewhere.
|
On November 12 2018 20:24 Acrofales 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. 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.
Constructive for what? The only reason I even brought up freedom in the general sense was because someone tried to make an argument that censorship is ok because other democratic countries do it.
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.
I don't know why everyone is trying to turn this into "OH YEAH? PROVE AMERICA IS MORE FREE" debate when that wasn't even the point I was making. I said:
And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry.
And all hell breaks loose because people get their panties in a bunch about the possibility that they aren't in the best country or some shit. I don't care about your country. I care about mine and telling me that you have some other freedoms that you or some institute subjectively decide are better isn't going to change my mind that we do NOT need MORE censorship in my country.
|
On November 12 2018 20:19 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:08 Velr wrote: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.
It's not "because we disagree with them". It's because of the specifics of their beliefs. In the same way, you're not fine with the fact that violence isn't part of free speech because you "disagree with the methods", but because of the violence.
|
On November 12 2018 20:30 Plansix wrote:
But no one advocated for censoring someone simply based on disagreement. They advocated for shutting down a subreddit because it spreads harmful, often anti semetic conspiracy theories. That isn’t even censorship, since none of the members of the subreddit would be prohibited from posting elsewhere.
I disagree that it spreads those things. I say you're lying. You're wrong. You are spreading falsehoods and I find it disgraceful. Your entire premise for advocating censorship is based on things you believe to be true, but aren't actually true. The reality is you don't like them or their views, that's why you want them censored and you hide behind the cowardly mask of moral superiority.
|
So obviously there should be some situations where you aren't allowed to say certain things, right?
I mean, could I go to someone's workplace and tell their boss that they are a rapist, for example? If that isn't covered by freedom of speech, why should Alex Jones be able to spout his utter bullshit on Facebook or Reddit? There are real life victims of his speech. These are specific, targeted individuals that Jones decided to lie about who are now receiving threats. Is it censorship to tell him not to do this, or to throw some legal weight behind it?
Freedom of speech will always have exceptions, for good reason, to avoid tyranny.
|
On November 12 2018 20:38 Jockmcplop wrote:
So obviously there should be some situations where you aren't allowed to say certain things, right?
I mean, could I go to someone's workplace and tell their boss that they are a rapist, for example? If that isn't covered by freedom of speech, why should Alex Jones be able to spout his utter bullshit on Facebook or Reddit? There are real life victims of his speech. These are specific, targeted individuals that Jones decided to lie about who are now receiving threats. Is it censorship to tell him not to do this, or to throw some legal weight behind it?
Freedom of speech will always have exceptions, for good reason, to avoid tyranny.
Um, technically you could do that actually. That's not illegal lol it's fucked up and wrong, but hey Julia Swetnick didn't get charged with anything and she committed perjury too. Alex Jones is not responsible for the actions of other people and there is no legal case against him.
|
On November 12 2018 20:38 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:30 Plansix wrote:
But no one advocated for censoring someone simply based on disagreement. They advocated for shutting down a subreddit because it spreads harmful, often anti semetic conspiracy theories. That isn’t even censorship, since none of the members of the subreddit would be prohibited from posting elsewhere. I disagree that it spreads those things. I say you're lying. You're wrong. You are spreading falsehoods and I find it disgraceful. Your entire premise for advocating censorship is based on things you believe to be true, but aren't actually true. The reality is you don't like them or their views, that's why you want them censored and you hide behind the cowardly mask of moral superiority.
No. And don’t call me a liar again.
|
On November 12 2018 20:38 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:30 Plansix wrote:
But no one advocated for censoring someone simply based on disagreement. They advocated for shutting down a subreddit because it spreads harmful, often anti semetic conspiracy theories. That isn’t even censorship, since none of the members of the subreddit would be prohibited from posting elsewhere. I disagree that it spreads those things. I say you're lying. You're wrong. You are spreading falsehoods and I find it disgraceful. Your entire premise for advocating censorship is based on things you believe to be true, but aren't actually true. The reality is you don't like them or their views, that's why you want them censored and you hide behind the cowardly mask of moral superiority.
I don't know enough about T_D to agree or disagree, and I don't feel like going to reddit to find it out (my general opinion on reddit can be found a few pages back). But just for the sake of argument, let us assume that there is a subreddit that *does* spread harmful, often anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Do you agree that such a forum should be shut down by the US government? Or does the spreading of harmful often anti-semitic conspiracy theories fall under the protection of free speech?
|
On November 12 2018 20:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:38 Jockmcplop wrote:
So obviously there should be some situations where you aren't allowed to say certain things, right?
I mean, could I go to someone's workplace and tell their boss that they are a rapist, for example? If that isn't covered by freedom of speech, why should Alex Jones be able to spout his utter bullshit on Facebook or Reddit? There are real life victims of his speech. These are specific, targeted individuals that Jones decided to lie about who are now receiving threats. Is it censorship to tell him not to do this, or to throw some legal weight behind it?
Freedom of speech will always have exceptions, for good reason, to avoid tyranny. Um, technically you could do that actually. That's not illegal lol it's fucked up and wrong, but hey Julia Swetnick didn't get charged with anything and she committed perjury too. Alex Jones is not responsible for the actions of other people and there is no legal case against him.
Actually, there *is* a legal case against him. It hasn't gone to trial yet, but it's slowly plodding through the bureaucracy of civil law: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45358890
|
On November 12 2018 20:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:38 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 20:30 Plansix wrote:
But no one advocated for censoring someone simply based on disagreement. They advocated for shutting down a subreddit because it spreads harmful, often anti semetic conspiracy theories. That isn’t even censorship, since none of the members of the subreddit would be prohibited from posting elsewhere. I disagree that it spreads those things. I say you're lying. You're wrong. You are spreading falsehoods and I find it disgraceful. Your entire premise for advocating censorship is based on things you believe to be true, but aren't actually true. The reality is you don't like them or their views, that's why you want them censored and you hide behind the cowardly mask of moral superiority. I don't know enough about T_D to agree or disagree, and I don't feel like going to reddit to find it out (my general opinion on reddit can be found a few pages back). But just for the sake of argument, let us assume that there is a subreddit that *does* spread harmful, often anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Do you agree that such a forum should be shut down by the US government? Or does the spreading of harmful often anti-semitic conspiracy theories fall under the protection of free speech?
No I don't think one should unless they are actually planning things to attack people. And yes hate speech falls under the protection of free speech laws, legally speaking.
|
On November 12 2018 20:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:46 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 20:38 Jockmcplop wrote:
So obviously there should be some situations where you aren't allowed to say certain things, right?
I mean, could I go to someone's workplace and tell their boss that they are a rapist, for example? If that isn't covered by freedom of speech, why should Alex Jones be able to spout his utter bullshit on Facebook or Reddit? There are real life victims of his speech. These are specific, targeted individuals that Jones decided to lie about who are now receiving threats. Is it censorship to tell him not to do this, or to throw some legal weight behind it?
Freedom of speech will always have exceptions, for good reason, to avoid tyranny. Um, technically you could do that actually. That's not illegal lol it's fucked up and wrong, but hey Julia Swetnick didn't get charged with anything and she committed perjury too. Alex Jones is not responsible for the actions of other people and there is no legal case against him. Actually, there *is* a legal case against him. It hasn't gone to trial yet, but it's slowly plodding through the bureaucracy of civil law: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45358890
Well no judge has ruled there's a case against him yet. We'll find out I suppose. One could have argued that there was a legal case against Trump in regards to his "defamation of Stormy Daniels" but sadly for her and the Creepy Porn Lawyer the judge ruled that they had to pay Trump's legal fees over their frivolous lawsuit. Simply suing somebody alone isn't grounds for having a valid legal case.
|
On November 12 2018 20:38 Jockmcplop wrote:
Freedom of speech will always have exceptions, for good reason, to avoid tyranny.
Probably I'm only one who understand what this guy trying to explain...
|
On November 12 2018 20:38 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:30 Plansix wrote:
But no one advocated for censoring someone simply based on disagreement. They advocated for shutting down a subreddit because it spreads harmful, often anti semetic conspiracy theories. That isn’t even censorship, since none of the members of the subreddit would be prohibited from posting elsewhere. I disagree that it spreads those things. I say you're lying. You're wrong. You are spreading falsehoods and I find it disgraceful. Your entire premise for advocating censorship is based on things you believe to be true, but aren't actually true. The reality is you don't like them or their views, that's why you want them censored and you hide behind the cowardly mask of moral superiority.
lol https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/9wa9bt/my_father_said_this_precise_thing_the_other_day/?st=JOE9YMBM&sh=027aa42c
‘Believe me, I’m not becoming a slave to them. If the ballot is corrupt, then the bullet is how we ensure that the will of the people prevails.’
‘We the people have to do it. That's reality. Fight en masse or be slaves. If we choose not to fight, we're only fit for slavery.’
‘People need to not be complacent. Stockpile guns, ammo and food. If they manage to get rid if trump we are going to have a civil war, as the left is going to declare war on conservative america.’
‘My belief is the only way to defeat democrats is with pure hatred and violence. They will abuse our kindness. Swiftly deal with them like a rabid rat. I bet they'll barely put up a fight once they realize we won't cuck to them anymore. And all this pc shit will die off as well.’
‘I also am leaning toward this mindset, it seems the only things Democrats can understand is violence.’
this took less than 5 minutes.  . you’ve routinely lied about what’s on this idiot subreddit, and somehow people just haven’t called you out on it(i did see one post, so apologies to whomever it was from for generalizing.) why we’re entertaining this bullshit is anyone’s guess.
presumably we agree this is harmful. i won’t go back to find the anti semitism. and if you disagree on them spreading conspiracy theories, frankly, i question your intelligence. (i’ve since found one for you by accident, on my next post.) and if you feel the urge to punish yourself to find the (un?)holy trinity, starting with your boy Soros will get you there in no time. of course, the topic itself won’t be inherently a harmful anti semitic conspiracy theory, so please spare me the stupidity. dive one layer into the comments before you bother with the faux indignity. in the words of your people, BTFO.
@Taelshin; go ahead and find anything that compares on this site.
|
On November 12 2018 20:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 20:51 Acrofales wrote:On November 12 2018 20:38 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 20:30 Plansix wrote:
But no one advocated for censoring someone simply based on disagreement. They advocated for shutting down a subreddit because it spreads harmful, often anti semetic conspiracy theories. That isn’t even censorship, since none of the members of the subreddit would be prohibited from posting elsewhere. I disagree that it spreads those things. I say you're lying. You're wrong. You are spreading falsehoods and I find it disgraceful. Your entire premise for advocating censorship is based on things you believe to be true, but aren't actually true. The reality is you don't like them or their views, that's why you want them censored and you hide behind the cowardly mask of moral superiority. I don't know enough about T_D to agree or disagree, and I don't feel like going to reddit to find it out (my general opinion on reddit can be found a few pages back). But just for the sake of argument, let us assume that there is a subreddit that *does* spread harmful, often anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Do you agree that such a forum should be shut down by the US government? Or does the spreading of harmful often anti-semitic conspiracy theories fall under the protection of free speech? No I don't think one should unless they are actually planning things to attack people. And yes hate speech falls under the protection of free speech laws, legally speaking.
Ok, we agree on what the law is right now. But that's what we are talking about. Laws aren't static, and if something is wrong with them they should change. Lets put your faith in this law to the test. Does the same freedom extend to an Imam who is preaching hatred of "corrupt western society"? Even if he doesn't include any calls to action or plan things to attack people?
What if we can show that as a direct consequence of his speech, other people radicalized and DID plan to attack people. Although the imam denies any responsibility and has no ties beyond the radicals being inspired by his words?
|
On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:22 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:10 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:09 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:06 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:02 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Are you seriously claiming that Putin's effect on the USA is the only relevant metric to judge him on? No, but our own government is a far great concern to most Americans than Putin. Most people agree that Putin is not a good guy. If you actually look through the majority of comments in this one thread people are saying they just want peace and healthy relationships with our adversaries. I can appreciate being more concerned with things closer to home. That's not the same thing as claiming Putin "isn't as bad" as the American government, a sentiment which you claimed was "to an extent... true". I didn't say that though lol *shrug* On November 12 2018 07:55 kmillz wrote:"He sure isn't as bad as the Satanists that have run our country." This is hyperbole, but to an extent it is true. Our own government has done far more destruction to our rights than Russia has in the last few decades. Would you care to clarify this post then? Not sure what more there is to clarify, do you need me to define hyperbole for you? You could define to what extent you believe it is true. Otherwise we are not exchanging information and this is not a conversation, merely rhetoric. Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it.
If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal.
However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly.
It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for.
|
The power of labeling your political goals as as nationalism is that you can accuse anyone who opposes them of hating their country. It is the same logic as naming a bill about overarching goverment surveillance the Patriot Act.
|
I just scrolled through r/ dolan for about 15 minutes and this was the only post that referenced Russia or Putin
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/9w4mnj/priceless_faces_of_world_leaders_receiving_despot/
a lot of crooked hillary memes, but most prominent were posts and links to newspapers about the ballot boxes found in airports and post offices at Broward
some hopeful posts about the terrorist group Antifa maybe finally getting shut down
and some disagreement with Macron's nationalism arguments
which idk, seems like a matter of interpretation
the spirit of nationalism granted many countries independence with peace harmony and prosperity, and many of the most peaceful and prosperous nations today are strongly nationalistic some even very racist to most westerners
then again there is the type of nationalism that led to world wars and the instability and extremism after the soviet union disintegrated, possibly due to destruction of the people's original cultures
so Macron's statement kind of makes sense since the first option is clearly out of reach for France and Germany
then again the multicultural success story for most people is the US which is currently in a culture war
can't say I saw any anti-semitism or globalist conspiracies, maybe I use reddit wrong
some really good ballot box memes though 5/5
|
I can't remember ever having heard of nationalism as something good, in the context of the last 100 or so years. In my ears it just screams (hidden) facist.
|
A lot of that page is filled with fictions about voter fraud in Florida. Some other conspiracy theories about Democrats wanting to register illegal immigrants to vote. And Tucker Carlson's weird story about his house being attacked that does not match up with the police report or other accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
