Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views (bloomberg.com)
According to a new Pew Research Center study, 72 percent of those polled (from a sample of 4,594 adults) think it's likely companies such as Facebook and Twitter actively censor political views that they consider objectionable. The study finds that Americans don't trust those companies to be impartial when it comes to partisan politics. Bloomberg reports: Republicans, more than their Democratic counterparts, displayed concern over perceived political bias. Eighty-five percent of Republicans and those who labeled themselves conservative independents said it's likely that social media platforms censor political speech. And 64 percent of Republicans think technology companies support the views of liberals over conservatives. The majority of Democrats, meanwhile, think it's likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints, coming in at 62 percent. But only about a quarter of Democrats worry that these companies support the views of conservatives over liberals.
As volatile as politics are now, I wouldn't trust anyone to be "objective" anymore. Shit, even my local donut shop is starting to get too heavy-handed with the politics on their Facebook page.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Water is wet, bears shit in woods, Sun rises in the east, and FB and Twitter censor anything that isn't "progressive".
"Determined by algorithm" doesn't mean the result is impartial. It just means it happened systematically.
I don't understand why it is that anyone trusts these companies at all when it comes to anything.
I know that Facebook doesn't censor my political views, as I already do that for my own postings. Twitter, censoring nothing is easy as I don't use that service.
The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
Basically total freedom of speech means nazism and child porn included. If you don't agree you agree to censorship.
I hate the thought that we may look back fondly one day soon on an earlier era where most businesses welcomed all customers, regardless of their political beliefs. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised to see most Silicon Valley-based social media platforms outright banning all posts supporting Trump by the 2020 elections, combined with a backlash from the right that only ratchets up the anger on both sides.
It's just not healthy for us to take politics this personally. A similar thing happened in the U.S. in the 1850's, with Congressmen literally beating each other on the Senate floor. And it ultimately lead to a civil war.
This story, which suggests more right-wingers think companies are biased toward left-wing politics reminds me of a fun quote: "Reality has a liberal bias." I suspect, based on politics in the USA at the moment, Republicans are running out of excuses as to why the world doesn't agree with their views. Suspecting censorship and blaming "fake news" seems to be all they have remaining to keep their bubble intact.
It's kind of like watching religious people claim evolution is fake or that you can't test for the existence of God because He needs to be taken on faith. The amount of mental twisting and denial is amazing and horrifying to watch.
Only Cowards Censor.
Yeah! Fuck the "most Americans", they almost gave us Hillary!
Slashdot and UNITED STATES CONGRESS are tools of INFIDELS. All who use Slashdot shall PERISH. Only Almighty Allah shall be a reliable source of news.
In my opinion, the issue became palpable in the 1990s with the beginning of the consumer internet age, the massive expansion of telecommunications powers, and the beginnings of the anti-public education campaign. The truth is that the vast majority of people in American have no clue how these businesses work or how their tech works. And they're OK with it because they like what their tech gives them AND they actually like complaining about it. Everyone wants an easy life of luxurious rebellion.
"Yes, I want to be able to say three words to my handheld device and for that device to tell me exactly how to get home... but I HATE that this corporation knows where I live! They have too much power!"
Thus, I can't be surprised when told that people love their Facebook and Twitter with one tongue and speak conspiracy with another. We keep teaching people be exactly like this.
or Democrats. They want whatever brings in the most money. Their "diversity" initiatives are just to more workers so they can depress wages. These companies campaign for the same low taxes, lax labor regulations and lax environmental rules as everybody else. They give a little more to Democrats but that's only because they're headquarters are located in Democratic strongholds like Seattle & California.
Make no mistake, the "Us vs Them" isn't "Tech Company vs Republican" it is and always has been working class vs ruling class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As volatile as politics are now, I wouldn't trust anyone to be "objective" anymore.
What are "objective" political beliefs?
If I go into a grocery store believing that the bread is in aisle three then when I turn out to be wrong I can adjust my beliefs.
But how do I know if my political beliefs are wrong? There's the middle ground fallacy - that the correct political beliefs are those that are held by the most people. But history isn't kind to that criterium.
How do I know if my political beliefs are "objective"?
I would settle for a moment of peace where every "friend" on Facebook or Twitter didn't feel the need to bombard with insipid inspirational quotes and the tiniest of details on every moment of their boring fucking lives. "I just took a shit this morning, and so here's an inspirational quote about shitting that I absolutely need to share with the world," said every friend and relative of mine on Facebook every day.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Tech companies aren't biased against Republicans
How many times has Obama's Twitter account been deleted compared to Trump?
I follow a lot of people who are both liberal and conservative, on Twitter and Facebook. I have see tons more conservatives being hit by things like shadow bans or outright bans on Twitter than I have seen any liberals affected.
It's pretty obvious Twitter hires quite a few people to police abuse on Twitter, and some themselves abuse that power to moderate that which they do not like reading.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Barring some yuuuge change, we are headed for a civil war or split-up. When too much political energy is wasted on nasty red/blue fights, it may be time to go separate ways. Otherwise, nothing of use will get done on the Federal level.
Why have a Federal gov't if all they do is bicker and redo/undo each others' laws and spending every cycle? Politics is rarely smooth, but this is shifting into destruction. It's watching sausages being destroyed, not made.
Table-ized A.I.
As an American it saddens me to truthfully say that most Americans today are dumbasses. Most especially, those who regularly ingest the mental poison that is Fox News are the dumbest of the dumb and - not surprisingly for a group locked into the Religious Right - believe their bullshit with religious fervor and are thus immutable to logic and reason. Jesus wept.
Well, in this case "objective" generally means letting people shoot their mouths off without censoring them for it, even if they're dumbasses who you strongly disagree with--in fact *especially* if they're dumbasses who you strongly disagree with. If every social media company only allows people to speak who agree with them, then all you're going to get is an echo chamber that, like an inbred trailer park, only gets more-and-more stupid, radical, and out-of-touch over time.
Letting the other side speak is how we remind ourselves that the world isn't just comprised of our own fragrant farts.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Because it keeps the people who live for the chance to tell someone else how to live something to do that's pretty much harmless. Much better than letting them indulge their desires to tell you what to do...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Barring some yuuuge change, we are headed for a civil war or split-up.
I'm hoping that Millennials will turn back from the brink when they realize that there isn't an app for civil war.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
My guess would be "not many." Abolishing it would instantly disenfranchise 90% of the states as presidential elections would be effectively decided by NYC and LA/SFO.
I'm pretty sure exactly two Americans gave you Hillary.
Ezekiel 23:20
I hate the thought that we may look back fondly one day soon on an earlier era where most businesses welcomed all customers, regardless of their political beliefs.
From Quote Investigator:
So continuing the game of hypothetical questions, if you were a Jewish person who had lost friends and family to the Nazi death camps and you were working back in the kitchen of a Jewish delicatessen and Hitler walked in and placed an order - what would you do? Would you be like "Here Mr. Hitler, sir, I cooked up your order as best I could - even though I don't agree with your political beliefs. I do so hope you like it!"
In a certain sense, the problem is not political beliefs, per se, it is the actions that result from those beliefs. If Hitler had merely believed that Jews should be exterminated then that might be something one could overlook in the name of polite civility. But Hitler actually did quite a bit to cause Jewish people to be sent to death camps which is much harder to excuse.
And here's the thing. Trump and his associates and his supporters are actually doing things that are cause horrific and unnecessary suffering for people in certain vulnerable populations - poor American children who need healthcare, people from foreign countries trying escape violence and persecution, etc. When Kirstjen Nielsen decides to go eat at a Mexican restaurant, that's only slightly less extreme than Joseph Goebbels fronting up to a Jewish delicatessen.
I mean, here are these people who have done these incredibly cruel and sadistic things to people in certain vulnerable populations - but then somehow it doesn't occur to them that people in these vulnerable populations might be upset about it and not like them? I suppose someone like Kirstjen Nielsen must see herself as a decent person. Wow, talk about living in a bubble!
If you're going go to great effort to do cruel and sadistic things to people then at least have the decency to accept that they're not going to like you.
Well, in this case "objective" generally means letting people shoot their mouths off without censoring them for it,...
According to Google:
So what if the facts are wrong? Would a social media still be "objective" if it censored posts that were factually incorrect?
Maybe you meant "open minded" or "tolerant" or "accepting?
I am #1 with platyhelminthes.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The important question isn't "How would you treat Hitler?" The important question is "How would you actually know he was Hitler and not just someone you had mistaken him for?" And it's a pretty important question in an era where everyone thinks they know exactly who Hitler is but, when asked to point him out, they all point to different people.
Will the real Hitler please stand up, please stand up, please stand up...
when they realize that there isn't an app for civil war.
But there is: Twitter's flash-mob. (or whatever platform you move it to.) It's not just for dancing anymore.
I've read of instant-theft, where a bunch of people show up at a store and minutes later Grab and Go. The store is set up for casual shoplifters, not when half of your customers are running away.
Now with instant communication running multi-point, just convert that to guerrilla warfare. "Will be meeting Aunt Marie at the local power substation at 2AM tomorrow. Bring presents, tell your friends!" And if enough of the "right" people show up, you've done a BANG up job.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
My guess would be "not many." Abolishing it would instantly disenfranchise 90% of the states as presidential elections would be effectively decided by NYC and LA/SFO.
bingo
A lot of laws and rulings impact states also. For example, making abortion a felony will impact a blue state also. As will taxing states to have a big military.
Table-ized A.I.
Plenty is getting done at the federal level. Problem is, the left is extremely angry about it. Instead of trying to win votes, they're aggressively attacking anyone who thinks differently from them. See the Bernie-Bro assassination attempt on Scalisle, the attack on Rand Paul, following Sarah Sanders to the next restaurant after asking her to leave, Maxine Waters advocating stalking people, the harassment of the Florida attorney general.... the list goes on. The left, now more than ever, thinks that they're so much better than their opponents that any depraved act is justified to get back on top.
Fact is they're nuts and going insane with rage. While I derive some guilty pleasure from watching youtube videos of far-away left wing cranks going apoplectic; it's not so fun seeing someone I know and like (who has been a generous host to me at several parties) falling apart on facebook. Her world is collapsing because folks she doesn't agree with got elected, and they're starting to play by some of the rules established by the left under Obama.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Objective in the more broad general sense of "fair," as in "I'm going to give a fair chance to everyone to shoot their stupid pie-holes off, even if they're fucking brain-dead morons who've clearly spend a good percentage of their lives huffing gasoline behind a 7-Eleven." It's the same system we use for voting rights.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
One of the reasons I quit facebook a few years ago was that I was getting too much political propaganda in my feeds through friends sharing every crack-pot theory. It was definitely not biased towards a liberal view point.
The fringes on both ends of the spectrum are virtually the same, basically militant in their approach. I'm more concerned with the mainstream conservatives willing to sell out their values simply to support the candidate with the R next to his name. Anyone thinking Trump is religious is a fool.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
they almost gave us Hillary!
Why is this marked funny? I voted for DT because he WASN'T Hillary. We've already had 8 years of Clinton and *I've* had him as a relative leader for an extra 12.
e-NOUGH already.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Trump isn't doing any of things the claim, and the main problem these days with politics is it's just mud flinging. Your post is a classic example. The opponent is hitting some group and is basically compared to Hitler, which is absolutely ridiculous.
You could turn it around on them. Start broadcasting genuinely factual tidbits with meme-worthy inspirational backgrounds.
[Insert hazy sunrise]
"The vast majority of stock investors are equally likely to lose money on an investment as they are to make money. On the other hand, investing in 'index funds' is like investing in the general growth of a market sector and is significantly more predictable in its success."
[Insert cat hanging from branch]
"Gravity is technically still a 'theory' because while we can predict gravity's effect on objects, we can't explain exactly why it happens. It could be the exchange of a tiny particle (a "graviton"), it could be because of the way things "vibrate". We just don't know for sure yet."
[Insert beautiful feast]
"All the best studies have shown that fad diets don't do much for the long-term fitness of the vast majority of people who try them. While they may see significant body changes in the short run, they typically require too much change from one's comfort level to keep one's progress for more than 6 months. What's the best way to drop pounds and feel better? Reduce your sweets intake, cook your own food, and move around more."
"Will be meeting Aunt Marie at the local power substation at 2AM tomorrow. Bring presents, tell your friends!" And if enough of the "right" people show up, you've done a BANG up job.
That's pretty easy to counter. All the other side has to do is point out that there's been a rare Pokemon spotted on the other side of town and no one will show up.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Your posts/tweets aren't missing from feeds, or placed lower on them, because of your political views, it's because the algorithms Facebook and Twitter use to generate the feeds don't think you -- and by extension, anything you have to say -- are important. Simple.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Inciting Violence. I'm going to be completely blunt. The reason the right wing (I refuse to call people in favor of radical change "Conservative") get more bans is there's a lot of them hinting at violence. There's a good example right here. Jones backpedaled as best he could but the meaning was clear. It's so common there's a name for it: Dog Whistling
You're entitled to your opinion right up until it becomes incitement to violence. The radical right has a lot of unhinged people than even the extreme left. There have been no cases of left wing terrorism since the 70s. Abortion doctors OTOH can point to multiple instances of terrorism and ask the black and LGBTQ communities about how they're treated down south some time. The right words said to the right person equals violence. The right have a well documented history of spreading those words and using them to oppress. Hate speech turns into actions all too often. You don't get to shout fire in a theater and you don't get to exclaim out loud how if only someone would rid you of this meddlesome priest.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Really, again with the Trump=Hitler crap? You are demeaning the slaughter of millions of innocent people. If Trump not letting you have your preferred corrupt politician is equivalent to genocide, you need some mental health support.
If you really want to hurt Trump, the best strategy would be to ignore him. People with big egos hate that. With each scream against him, you're only making his hairplugs stronger.
You're choosing to play ball on his field, and he's Babe Ruth. But even the Babe can't knock it out of the park if you don't pitch to him. Try buying him hookers instead. The Babe loved those.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
What's interesting to me is that anyone who is publicly associated with Trump would even consider eating in a sit-down restaurant (as opposed to having a friend or minion pick up some take-out anonymously). I mean, I'm just a random nobody and I figure I probably get a fair bit of spit, snot, etc. in my food. But, wow, after the vicious, cruel, sadistic policies that Trump has directed toward foreigners and immigrants, it's hard to imagine that the public faces of the Trump regime wouldn't realize that they're hated by exactly the kind of people who work in restaurant kitchens. What kind of bubble must Sarah Sanders be living in that she would wander into some random restaurant and not expect to, at a minimum, eat a plateful of spit - or maybe she likes eating spit?
8 Miserable Years of Prosperity.
You strike on an interesting point - the Federal Government bickering and fighting everywhere. Let's work to shrink the Federal Government back down to what it was supposed to be, and not only will it have a lot less to bicker about, it will have much less influence on people as it loses the ability to pick winners and losers in all aspects of life. The Constitution explicitly stated what the Federal Government could do, and explicitly stated ANYTHING else was for the States or the People - NOT the Federal Government. Somehow the folks elected to DC managed to convince enough people that it is OK for them to go beyond their Constitutional limits because "it's someone else's fault and you should be paid for whatever you like"...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes, too bad Trump doesn't just talk down to those deplorable, bitter guns-and-god clingers getting all wee-wee'd up!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
after the vicious, cruel, sadistic policies that Trump has directed toward foreigners and immigrants
Vicious, cruel, sadistic is when they shoot you at the border, not when they take you to an air-conditioned detention center, let you take a warm shower, and give you a clean jumpsuit to wear. Though the food is, admittedly, not great.
And I'm pretty sure most of the immigrants in your narrative might point out that they faced much worse conditions *before* they got caught than afterwards, especially given coyotes' nasty predilection for raping their paying customers and putting them in shipping containers to die. They might point that out if you bothered to ask them anyway, which you wouldn't of course. Because they're really just faceless extras to use in your own political movie featuring Donald Trump in the starring role as Adolph Hitler, aren't they?
Part of the problem is politics has gone beyond policy, but to identity.
If you are the tough guy then you should be a republican.
If you are an intellectual then you are a democrat.
If your religious then you are a republican.
If your an atheist then you are a democrat.
It isn’t about policy anymore it is personal. It is about the other side trying to stop your way of life and your values.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Have you read the law? Crossing the border illegally is a crime. We don't keep children with indicted criminals. That to is a law. The law doesn't allow us to jail children with their parents.
Making the rounds on FaceBook:
I think it is more the case the algorithm is working normally not censoring. It is just no one really cares on your political belief. So the algorithm rates content no one cares about accordingly.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Done!
https://imgur.com/gallery/Hmtt...
Beware of the Leopard.
Turns out that doesn't happen in a popular vote system. People's votes count across the country.
Whereas the Electoral College is hampered by having tens of thousands of voters be more important than millions elsewhere solely based on artificial lines that mean nothing.
And that isn't even counting the apportionment problem.
...if your political views involve things like blatant racism and overt calls for genocide. In most countries that sort of stuff is legally considered hate speech, but it seems to be a moderate-right position in the US these days.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Straw man.
The examples were provided as a refutation of the 'it is legal' defence.
It states only that "legality is not a guide to morality" and does not make the stronger claim you rebut that 'legality is immoral'. ..".
Not content with your straw man, you go on to parody those you claim to have made it with your "hurt durr,
Please don't. There is always provocation for poor behaviour. It is never an excuse.
and really the truth - not one sided political noise - you've got to examine multiple news sources. If all you listen to is MSNBC or FOX then you're only going to get opposite ends of the spectrum. The exact same news story will be reported through a political lens, skewed this way or that to advance a given agenda.
Me? I listen to NPR and I watch FOX and I browse various news sites on the interweb. Somewhere in all that lies the truth. When I hear news I am skeptical. I ask myself what agenda are they trying to sell. And EVERYONE has an agenda. Everyone.
So the trick is to recognize where the news reporting ends and the editorial begins. In the old days, Walter Cronkite would announce "and now for tonight's editorial..." so you knew that what you were about to hear was opinion. Today it is all interspersed so it can be difficult to tell where the reporting ends and the opinion begins.
don't be so fucking stupid.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Social media reinforces homogeneity. Part of it is the echo chamber effect, partly because it is so easy to find people based on your opinions and interests.
When you are 'forced' to interact with neighbours, colleagues etc. even with location and social strata providing some conformity, there's still a greater need to accomodate differences of opinion and even belief. At the same time, being accepted and knowing that you 'belong' even if you don't have exactly the same beliefs and opinions means that there's less pressure to conform.
Finding and knowing your role in a community is a powerful drive. Communication technology has taken our drive to belong and exaggerated it into something unhealthy.
Compromise is no longer as necessary. People are unpractised at it and it takes work to overcome our 'us and them' drive. Easier to simply find a place of like minded people and not deal with 'other'. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Trump only demanded that the existing laws on the treatment of illegal immigrants be enforced. And he inherited these laws from his predecessors. The illegal immigrants bring minor children with them because they work better than a passport. If you want to invade the US all you need to do is bring a child with you. Although over 1/3rd of the minor children being detained crossed the border by themselves. Obama was partial to making executive orders and that is not always a bad thing. Relying on executive orders for the country's immigration policy is not a good solution. The Legislative Branch is the guilty party in the immigration policy debate. The Democrats are crying about the detained children but have not offered a solution to the problem. They are content to use the detained children to attack the President. The Democrats and Republicans that make up the Legislative branch is ultimately responsible for almost every problem the country faces. Immigration, trade, military deployments, and the economy. And the braying public doesn't even understand that the Executive Branch does not have the power to effect the major issues of the day. The President is just the front man. A President cannot dictate laws or even influence the national budget. While every one is focused on the President related investigation the actual culprits are safely out of the spotlight. And the Democrats, Socialists, Communist, Republicans, and Independents are all guilty of forgetting that every action creates a reaction. The Democrat calling for people to harass anyone working for Trump better be ready for a Republican to push back. And for god's sake there is another Presidential election in 2 years and Trump will be gone. Relentlessly hounding everything he says or does just means the next Democrat to become President will face the same type of tactics.
And the post asking if you would you serve Hitler if he came into your business establishment is a trick question. Hitler would have just killed or imprisoned anyone trying to dictate any of his actions.
So what if the facts are wrong?
Then they're not facts, and you refute them with actual facts. Duh.
The pertinent question isn't really "what if they're wrong"; it's "what if they're right". If you have a policy of censoring anyone you believe to be wrong, you aren't even leaving yourself open to the possibility that YOU might be wrong. This is how dictatorships operate. They don't argue with you, they don't consider your position, they just shut you up and lock you away the moment you say anything they don't like.
I would far rather have a marketplace of ideas in which any crank can say whatever stupid thing pops into their mind than a marketplace of ideas where only popular things can be said. The former might be annoying and anarchic, but the latter is far, far more dangerous. All progress ceases when intelligent disagreements aren't even allowed to take place.
Will show what side of US politics social media was all over to support.
What side of US politics got talked about as having the support of social media brands.
What accounts got banned for their political views.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Ask Milo why he called for violent assault on the press.
He didn't. He made an offhand barb in private correspondence with reporters who emailed him asking for comment. They then reported his words in "the news". If any violence erupted from that it would be their fault, not his. You might rightly view his words as insulting, rude, or otherwise indicative of a douchebag, but only a moron would see them as "calling for violence".
Had he made the same comment on twitter, or another public forum, or even just egged on his followers in private, that would be a different story. But he didn't.
Straw man.
The examples were provided as a refutation of the 'it is legal' defence.
Horseshit. "The examples" were themselves a strawman since nobody ever argued that legal and moral are the same thing. The previous guy merely pointed out that the government is enforcing the law the way they're supposed to, rather than ignoring it the way a certain previous administration did.
You think the law is immoral? Great, start a campaign to change it. Meanwhile the government has a duty to enforce it as it's written.
It's neither dishonesty nor hyperbole when 45's "fine people" are literally marching in the streets with the swastika. Sorry, not sorry... if it talks like a nazi, goose-steps like a nazi, and sieg heil's like a nazi; it's a goddamned nazi.
Imagine all the people...
I'd always heard this attributed to Winston Churchill.
As for Hitler--I thought everybody knew that he retired to a bed & breakfast in England.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
If it's possible for illegals to obtain what passes for welfare benefits in the US, then perhaps the US benefits system needs to be fixed. In other countries I've lived in, you're required to show proof that you're a citizen or legal resident before the social assistance people will even talk to you for help with anything other than maybe a one-way ticket home (and you'll be expected to pay them back for it).
You conveniently ignore the fact that many of those folks from Central/South America are trying to escape pretty desperate circumstances--dictatorships, guerrilla warfare, gang violence. In addition, you fail to acknowledge that those conditions can very often be traced back to US policies that encouraged and in some cases *installed* right-wing dictatorships in those countries and the US War On Drugs. Not to mention the fact that local economies were often ruined by US-based multinational corporations backed by US power. Some search terms to get you started: Allende, Somoza, United Fruit Co.
No disrespect intended to your relatives who went into Auschwitz and never came out again, but I think you're sounding a whole lot like "I know nothing of the relevant history but I'll spout off anyway", as well as a little like "I've got mine".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of Slashdotters are not at all interested in your reindeer games and would quite happily watch the whole bloody lot of yas take a very long stroll down a very short pier.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As volatile as politics are now, I wouldn't trust anyone to be "objective" anymore.
I mean this in the most respectful possible way, but doesn't that make you part of the problem? Polarisation feeds distrust, and distrust feeds polarisation.
For example, at some point we need to agree that there is such a thing as objective reality, and that most big news outlets report it accurately enough most of the time.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If they had enough power in 2 or 3 branches, the evangelical-controlled GOP would make it so.
It's not mandated to be bloated. If my job is to mow the grass that doesn't mean I should shave it bald.
Table-ized A.I.
As i laughed along at that I could imagine the howls of outrage from Twitter if anyone dared to produce something like that now.
O RLY?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Maybe the question is "why do we keep calling people with different political views Hitler/Nazis?"
I mean, enforcing borders laws + procedures that have been around for years (even pre-Obama) suddenly means the fourth reich.
The answer of course, is that the people saying this are being manipulated by the Democrats, with other people being manipulated by the Republicans.
We shouldn't allow little-Stalinists to censor freedom of speech. EVER.
snip...
Obama was partial to making executive orders and that is not always a bad thing. Relying on executive orders for the country's immigration policy is not a good solution
snip....
If Obama was indeed partial to making executive orders what would that make all the other presidents prior to him in the last hundred years? Wikipedia shows that they either did more executive orders or did more per year spent in office than Obama. Of the more recent presidents, only H.W Bush had less executive orders, but he only spent 1 term in office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I know how tech works, and I know that algorithmically it is possible to design a map gadget that does not tell google where I live. Hell, even google maps works offline.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
That comment was about the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" participants. Here is the transcript:
REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group â" excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
Trump is saying that some of the Unite the Right protesters were "very fine people" despite their decision to associate and march with people openly displaying swastikas and chanting "blood and soil" while holding their burning torches and wearing 1488 t-shirts.
In any case, the bigger issue was his failure to swiftly and completely condemn the nationalists. If you can't even say "Nazis are bad" or "I dislike people who want to create an ethnostate in the US" then there is a problem. To be fair to Trump, he probably doesn't like those people and doesn't agree with them, but because parts of his base are associated with them or share some of their views he won't directly condemn them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Then they're not facts, and you refute them with actual facts. Duh.
That's not the problem. Politicians love to cherry pick facts that support their ideology. That's what Kellyanne Conway meant by "alternative facts", things that are true but carefully selected to mislead the listener.
As a result people have stopped believing arguments even when they have facts to back them up. They think that it's legitimate to just google some alternative facts that support their views and that makes them right.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He did. When asked about it he said it was his "standard response", and other journalists have confirmed that he has sent the same message to them.
He's adopted Trump's attacks on the media and, as he is famous for, taken them to an extreme that gets him attention. He then hand waves them away as not serious, trying to absolve himself of any responsibility for the words he uses.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
On the one hand, there are real dangers and threats to be angry about. For example, now there is an opportunity to appoint a new supreme court judge there is a risk to women's bodily autonomy and to gay people's rights.
On the other hand, progressive and left leaning candidates have been unseating hard right incumbents all over the place. The anger and protest is proving effective it seems.
This round of elections will be extremely interesting to see.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He's a professional provocateur who uses Twitter as a weapon. Why anyone pays attention is beyond me.
Oh right, he's President. Ba dum, tsh!
I keep hearing a lot about how terrible Antifa is, but have they actually murdered anyone? Do they drive cars into crowds?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18...
Anita purposely uses anonymity to mask its violence so that it's hard to trace back to them.
You know, kinda like those -chan trolls you love to mock? Antifa is using the same tactics. Strange you claim that they're on a different level.
While that article doesn't specifically say they've killed anyone, antifa has been linked to injuring police (what did you expect when you're starting riots) and destroying property. You should read the article. It even includes interviews with one of them being rather proud they're breaking the law and breaking people's stuff.
Do any of them honestly think that there is a war on and that killing the other side is justified?
Read the cnn article. Yes, yes they honestly do think that. One of them in the article claim it's self defense, which implies the Nazis (dun dun DUN) were attacking them and they're fighting back.
Because that's the level of batshit we have from the far right. It's another level entirely, and order of magnitude away from the worst I've ever seen Antifa do.
They're both bad. Even if we grant one is the lesser evil, it's still evil.
When people are trying so hard to equate clearly very different things like this, you have to ask what they are trying to hide.
"what have you got to hide" is just a cheap attempt at character assassination. It's McCarthyism all over again (note the irony here)
And in this case it's not even a difficult question to answer, because the violence and murders and Nazism are overt and well publicised. It's not distraction, it's gaslighting.
Nah, this is you telling other people what they're thinking. They could have all sorts of other reasons, but you just want to tell them which reason they're thinking. It makes it easier for you to demonize and dehumanize them.
People knew the Supreme Court hung in the balance in fall 2016 and the vote went the way it did anyhow. Now it's too late to do anything about it. McConnell doesn't care about being a hypocrite, much less being called one. Even if a blue wave comes in, it's a safe bet those federal court decisions will be overturned. It makes me glad I live in a state that actually cares about human rights.
Hello group. My name is Martin, and I use Facebook. I have absolutely caught them censoring political content, though not in ages. They literally removed link content from my posts after the fact (the links were correctly thumbnailed and attached), and ONLY political content. I checked the links from my history and the pages were still active.
I don't know that they are still doing this, but they still by default dick around with which posts they actually show you. You have to manually go to everyone's streams if you want to be sure you see everything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You mean people would stop having a bigger say in national elections just because of where they live? The horror.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So everyone that choses to march or support black lives matter are responsible for what the more extreme in their group said since they didn't branch off and make their own separate march?
If it's possible for illegals to obtain what passes for welfare benefits in the US, then perhaps the US benefits system needs to be fixed. In other countries I've lived in, you're required to show proof that you're a citizen or legal resident before the social assistance people will even talk to you for help with anything other than maybe a one-way ticket home
so you support bring refugee children in and then starving them and denying them medical treatment?
I know that's not what your saying but I guarantee that would be the next argument
"There were good people on both sides"
So, if at least 1 person was marching because they liked statuary, he was (technically) correct
The best way to hide a lie is to bury it in truths.
I hate the thought that we may look back fondly one day soon on an earlier era where most businesses welcomed all customers, regardless of their political beliefs.
How do you look back on a time which never existed?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
To be fair to Trump, he probably doesn't like those people and doesn't agree with them,
That's being kind to Trump, and unfair to America. The Trump family has a rich history of white supremacy, and ignoring it is doing yourself and the nation a disservice.
Trump probably doesn't like those people, but he probably does agree with them. That's how he can describe Nazis as "fine people" without choking on his tongue.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In my opinion, the issue became palpable in the 1990s with the beginning of the consumer internet age, the massive expansion of telecommunications powers, and the beginnings of the anti-public education campaign.
The sacking of public education began approximately in the 1960s. You're off by three decades.
The dumbing-down of the populace is the most important driver by far. The bulk of the educated populace is the middle class (the upper class is small) so they went after the middle class, not because they don't want them to have any money, but because they don't want them to be educated.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Do you think he wants to make America white, or is his racism just driven by monetary considerations? I don't know enough to say.
I think he cares more about money than about whiteness, it's not like he won't hire brown people, so long as he can pay them sub-subsistence wages. But I do believe he believes that white people are inherently superior.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That argument is akin to "I was just following orders!" If a law is immoral then it should not be followed or enforced. The Government is not some magical entity, it is composed of individual people who are tasked with doing its work. Of course the problem in that regard is that our country is not some monolithic homogeneous culture where everyone shares the same beliefs in regards to what is right or wrong.
From what I understand of the family separation issue, the law has allowed for the current situation for a long while. However family separations are just one of several options given in the law, but Trump has ordered that only the harshest option be used. In my opinion this is short sighted, foolish, and plainly inhumane. I wouldn't set out to do some home repairs and throw out my whole toolbox except the rubber mallet.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's not people with *different* political views, it's people with *specific* political views and tactics.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Facebook employees were caught suppressing user content that they did not agree with.
Twitter used to be more open but has bent to pressure to censor from corporate and government.
For example: Facebook Employees Are Quitting Because Users Are Being Censored
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again."
-Mike Godwin, originator of Godwin's law
You're conflating the worst of a group with the group AGAIN. Are BLM people all cop killers because a few in the group killed cops? If so then yes, the comparison is definitely BLM = Nazis since both conduct themselves in absolutely amoral ways. If you're willing to say BLM is a variety of people with real no central organization, and some people are bad but that isn't indicative of the whole, then you have to be willing to say the same about the ad-hoc groups which oppose you.
This always brings up an interesting conundrum in my mind. I think that we frequently give too much power to the States to run stuff, like medicaid, and disproportionate representation in the Senate. Then I think of issues like gay marriage or medical and recreational marijuana, where the States have led the way.
This guy gets it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If there's anything we've learned in the last 2 years, it's that most Americans are blithering idiots who probably shouldn't be allowed to cross the streets without a competent adult holding their hand.
A lot of people - even Democrats - had a visceral distaste for Clinton (who was the worst possible candidate the party could have chosen), and figured that Trump couldn't be that bad. A lot of those people are reconsidering that assessment.
'Republicans, more than their Democratic counterparts, displayed concern over perceived political bias' --- given it is pretty much established that both the companies have a liberal political slant in their employees statement i don't think this statement should be a shock.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Personally, I don't "trust" anything from the big news outlets and probably never will. That said, I can consume their views and process it through the filter of knowing how those outlets spin a story. They all tend to conveniently ignore things that are against the narrative they're spinning, so it's generally a bad idea to use only one source for a story anyway, especially if it portrays one side in a particularly positive or negative way.
If it's possible for illegals to obtain what passes for welfare benefits in the US, then perhaps the US benefits system needs to be fixed
The vast majority of US benefits require that you show citizenship or a green card (permanent, non-citizen resident).
There's a tiny bit of benefits available to everyone, but that's things like emergency room treatment at a hospital. You can't live on them.
However, the vast majority of Republicans believe "welfare" 1) still exists (it ended in the 1990s), 2) is far more generous than it actually is, and 3) that there are more programs than actually exist. They have believed this since the 1980s and are not going to return to reality any time soon.
While that article doesn't specifically say they've killed anyone, antifa has been linked to injuring police (what did you expect when you're starting riots) and destroying property
How many federal buildings have they bombed? How many people have they shot while they were attending church? How many people have they run over with cars?
The answer on the political right to both questions is more than one in the last 30 years. The answer on the political left is zero in the last 30 years.
Heck, on the last question there actually have been Republicans proposing legislation to make it legal to run over protesters with your vehicle.
That's what makes this a false equivalency. There already is political violence in the US, but "both sides" are nowhere near the same level of violence.
Almost nobody in america owned slaves at any time that it was legal. Sorry your family sucks.
If you say that a rally that's heavily composed of nazis is full of fine people and your dad was a klansman it's going to make me wonder how much he rubbed off on you. My grandfather was gruff and sometimes not very nice but the worst he ever did by race was dropping some 'coloreds' and 'orientals' which is pretty mild as far as old people go.
That's the smoke but the fire is when you can smell trump's insincerity when he speaks, particularly on racial issues. Maybe that's why he's so popular with libertarian autistics. Your brain lacks a hardware bullshit decoder so you have to do it all in software with pure logic and it's just not good enough.
This is why trump is popular with hardcore autistics.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Abolishing it would instantly disenfranchise 90% of the states
90% of the states are already effectively disenfranchised. A Republican in CA effectively can not vote for President. Same with a Democrat in TX.
presidential elections would be effectively decided by NYC and LA/SFO
Population of Los Angeles County: 10M
Population of San Francisco County: 870K
Population of the counties that make up New York City: 14.5M
Population of the United States: 325.7M
So, your argument is 7.8% of the population would have complete control over presidential elections, and that would be bad.
Population of Ohio: 11.6M
Population of Florida: 20.9M
11.6% of the population already has complete control over presidential elections, thanks to the electoral college. Isn't that bad? Shouldn't a presidential candidate care about the millions of Republicans in CA or the millions of Democrats in TX?
Theoretically, small states are protected by over-representation the Senate. In reality, we have not expanded the size of the House since the 1910s, so small states are currently over-represented in the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Shouldn't at least one position in our federal government not be determined by small states?
It's great that twitter doesn't censor political views and I wish it turned a blind eye to what passes for harassment in 2018. The true tragedy is that it doesn't shut down altogether. Every person I've ever met who had more than a few posts on their twitter account was a raging asshole, the exception being of course people who had some practical use like reporting snowdays or traffic closures.
When I was single I used to give tinder girls a for-purpose twitter account. If they didn't have a twitter I gave them my google voice. Every pathological case had a twitter.
Even lulzsec... medium of choice... twitter.
" Trump and his associates and his supporters are actually doing things that are cause horrific and unnecessary suffering for people in certain vulnerable populations"
Prove your accusation. Remembering accusations aren't evidence, and the entertainment industry is not an acceptable form of evidence, as we have already learned they manufacture whatever they need to suit the situation.
If he really was doing the evil things you say that would be far more court action working right now. Not bickering.,
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
He did. When asked about it he said it was his "standard response", and other journalists have confirmed that he has sent the same message to them.
Yes, it's his standard response to reporters who email him asking stupid questions. No, it's not him "calling for violent assault on the press".
He's adopted Trump's attacks on the media and, as he is famous for, taken them to an extreme that gets him attention. He then hand waves them away as not serious, trying to absolve himself of any responsibility for the words he uses.
He's been "attacking the media" far longer than trump has, which is part of what's made him so entertaining. Idiots love to misquote him and accuse him of being an eeeeeevil Nazi calling for violence, but anyone who isn't a brain damaged SJW can see through that narrative fairly easily.
Nobody is reposting anything, Chris.
Seven Slashdot user accounts got deleted for linking to a third-party website with a unauthorized reposted image. Creimer 7, Creimertards 0.
Goodbye, Slashdot!
Those the weasel words of a person who supports heinous acts but doesn't want to be held responsible for them. Cowardly and intellectually dishonest. If you think the law is a good one, own it.
What kind of a cunt thinks that its "weasel words" to tell people how to fix something they see as a problem?
I DO think the law is a good one. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but so far nobody has made any serious argument for why it's not good. Hence my "if you think it's immoral, work to change it" statement. You can start by putting together a coherent argument which doesn't just boil down to "hurr durr muh feels".
But how do you *know* that a "fact" is right or wrong? Knowing is by definition subjective. And you can only act on what you know.
This is why Nietzsche said, "there are no facts, only interpretations." You hear/read a statement and you over time decide it to be true or false based on endless subjective criteria:
- are you sure you heard it/saw it correctly?
- who do you believe is the source?
- what do you believe about the reputation of the source?
- how sure you are the claim has been correctly relayed from the source? How correctly?
- what do you believe other people -- who you believe are smart and/or reputable -- think about that claim?
- how sure you are *they* saw/read it well?
and so on, to infinity. Practically -- I believe -- we arrive to the decision whether something is true or false statistically, and weighed by how much we think the "fact" is important for us -- whether it's a curiosity or a matter or life or death.
Spoken like a true Nazi.
The problem is that the Federal government, and especially the court system up to and including the Supreme Court, is far too involved with the day to day lives of people. The Constitution created a government of LIMITED powers, in which the state and LOCAL governments were managing things, and that the INDIVIDUAL was mostly in control of their own destinies.
Now with the Federal government exercising a closer and more intrusive mode of controlling the people, "the people" are beginning to push back.
The genie will never go back into the bottle; the Federal government has become too entrenched and could never be un-involved with the lives of the average people. But something like that MUST happen, or we'll have to go back in time to the point when the Constitution was adopted, either with another Revolution or with another Constitutional Convention.
But SOMEHOW, we need to dial back the amount of control that some people have over other people.
I believe it was a Heinlein quote; "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." Historically, Americans have been in the second group.
Don't worry, they're trying to ban Trump from the ballot all together. I think 25 states want to do that so far.
So it's never been a better time to be a Democratic candidate. Want to be the big cheese? Run!
Just be careful. Like Trump, you may get it. Then what? Nothing you do will be ok.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I strongly encourage such folks to try being on the other side of that issue sometime.
I hear the same sort of crap sometimes in Sweden. Had an interesting argument on the subject with a gentleman on the train a couple of years ago who made the mistake of starting up a rant about that whilst sitting next to me. After about 10 minutes, I decided I'd had enough, and I spoke up.
Turned out that he was chronically unemployed (and, I suspect, an alcoholic), and that I, the immigrant who'd come to steal his benefits, had in fact paid more in income taxes the previous year than he'd received in his pension. "So, my friend, it seems that some lazy foreign invader paid for your pension and you spent lot of it on beer, am I right?" Strangely enough, he had absolutely nothing else to say.
It was very quiet in that car for a long while afterwards, with lots of uncomfortable-looking faces, none of whom would look me in the eye.
Gave me a warm feeling inside.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Their is insufficient evidence it was politically motivated.
Biden had a similar experience from conservatives about a decade earlier.
Trump has advocated similar. You are cherry-picking.
Table-ized A.I.
"You think the law is immoral? Great, start a campaign to change it."
Pardon me, brother. Can you spare a couple hundred million dollars? I need to buy me some legislators & judges!
Immigrants are not evil. They are usually hard working, good people.
Large scale immigration often displaces indigenous workers and drives down aggregate wages for the area.
Both these statements are true. Good public policy must recognize both.
If many people expressed what they really feel they would go to prison or chased down the street by neighbors and maybe some businesses as well. For example the news media just dwells and dwells on shootings and to me it is simply cheap content. It's almost like watching the Jerry Springer show. OK, so five journalists got killed. Nobody likes that. Yet the murder rate in Chicago continuous to be a nightmare but that is not news. If it is cheap content the media will show it all. Meanwhile we have a lunatic as president who was not actually elected by the people who is a danger to the survival of life on this planet. There is every reason to think that the media should be grinding on him until there is nothing left.
That's the smoke but the fire is when you can smell trump's insincerity when he speaks, particularly on racial issues. Maybe that's why he's so popular with libertarian autistics. Your brain lacks a hardware bullshit decoder so you have to do it all in software with pure logic and it's just not good enough.
Trumpanistas will happily tell you that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza place, and then in the same breath demand proof that Trump is a white supremacist even though there is literally infinitely more evidence of that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
that is because the poor and non-white are a really convenient propaganda tool - if the uneducated lock her up chanting masses of white faces learned that welfare queens don't exist and that immigrants for the most part are real hard working people with families that want nothing more than to belong to the community and not sleeper MS13 thugs they would suddenly realize that they are either being used or just plain assholes.
Or even worse, they'd stop being distracted by the sideshow and start to oppose the actual causes of their problems.
Large scale immigration often displaces indigenous workers and drives down aggregate wages for the area.
More people increase demand for goods and services. So it's not as clear-cut as this statement implies.
... Are you a nerd God wizard?
They're very anti-Israel. They're anti-conservative. Both sites have an extreme left-wing bias. Only a fool thinks they're objective services.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
It's not as clear cut as either statement, taken as an absolute. Politics and macroeconomics are like that.
There's the demand issue you mention. There's also the matter of timeframe.
For example: On a long time horizon (2+ generations), massive immigration can be a big boost to an economy. Whereas on a short time horizon, that exact same massive immigration causes social havoc as the indigenous working class are displaced from their jobs and fall into destitution.
What kind of a cunt thinks that its "weasel words" to tell people how to fix something they see as a problem?
The part where you act like there's no discretion in the enforcement of law, and that the law requires a policy that was just enacted this year (before which, multiple administrations exercised discretion to NOT create a humanitarian crisis), and that the onus is on the people who object to the policy rather than the people who enacted it.
The law does not require that children be separated from their parents, nor does it require every case be prosecuted. There's no need to change the law to end that policy.
What good argument is there FOR this policy?
Well I'm surprised. The numbers I found were higher than I anticipated but still lower than your 36%.
I think most people are wired to know that slavery and that racism is unfair. Though they use various rationalizations to allow either one when it's convenient and feelings about what's racist will vary from person to person through no fault of their own.
I don't think trump is most people. His apologies always sound totally sociopathic
Interesting story btw
The law does not require that children be separated from their parents, nor does it require every case be prosecuted
Congratulations, you've just described every law in existence. I suppose the next time a person with kids commits murder we should just ignore it. Because, you know, the law does not require that every case be prosecuted. And you wouldn't want to separate them from their kids!
Be honest: you're not arguing that criminals shouldn't be separated from their kids; what you're arguing for is the idea that illegal immigrants should not be prosecuted. You want law enforcement and the judicial system to ignore the law.