You have every right to complain. Just try an make the complaints informative or insightful. Most of the complaints here are ridiculous histrionics.
Rarely have I seen as much whining, whinging, and cry-babying as I've seen from right wing posters on this issue, the professional right-wing victims are really out in force. They could be trumpeting the fact that Twitter has effectively said that nothing Trump has posted so far is hate speech, but instead they have to throw a little hissy fit over how Twitter said even the President-elect can be banned if he breaks the rules.
A bakery should be able to refuse to support an activity or event of which they do not approve. If a gay man is marrying a woman (perfectly OK with Christians), they should not be able to refuse service just because the customer is gay. That's discrimination that has been deemed illegal. Refusing to cater (provide a cake for) a wedding between two men should be perfectly legal because private persons have a right of (dis)association.
Businesses no longer have that right because it was abused. They are not legally allowed to refuse to do business with people based on certain characteristics because those refusals were used in an organized manner to punish and torment people for who they are (race, sexual-orientation) or what they believe (religion). Imagine, for instance, living in a town where the grocery stores refused to do business with you because of the colour of your skin. I doubt you'd think it was fair for them to try and starve you out of town. On the flip side, those laws also protect businesses, because it no longer makes sense for the current customers of a business to boycott it just because it does business with people with the "wrong" coloured skin. Every business is required by law to ignore certain differences, so if they shut down one with a boycott, any business that replaces it will still have to do business with those people anyway.
Even given that, there are things that a baker can refuse to do. For instance, it is my understanding that the baker can refuse to decorate a cake with a same-sex wedding theme. However, they can't refuse to sell a generic wedding cake to someone just because the person is gay.
Wait, so you're saying on the day you lost your virginity you were sexually attracted to both men and women, had one willing and available partner of each sex, but for some reason you had to choose once for all which gender would have sex with? And after that point you lost all interest in the gender you did not select?
If that's the case, that's playing with fire. If people are afraid of signing up because Twitter will apply biased enforcement even to the President of the United States of America, that hurts their bottom line. Some people won't sign up, others will go elsewhere for more controversial topics.
Not really, Twitter doesn't actually want the people who won't abide by their rules. Those people damage the Twitter brand, drive off some users, and make it harder for the twitter owners to cash out of the business (and reduce the amount they would get for the business). Then there's also a flip side: the idea that Twitter's rules apply to everyone no matter who they are might appeal to some people, whether they are current or future users.
You're confused, Trump has a lead in the electoral college. Trump and others are not getting frosted over that. Irrelevant your 2.5 million popular vote, we don't elect presidents that way because otherwise career criminals with no regard for national security or the rule of law like Clinton would get elected by the half of society that is parasites.
There are also some indications of health benefits of small intake, but they tend to not be conclusive.
Actually, the "health benefits" have, may have been debunked and found to be systemic failures in the studies that originally found them. To put it simply, the drinking group in every test, by necessity, does not include anyone who no longer consumes alcohol due to health concerns, while the non-drinking groups may contain such individuals. This biases the health results on the non-drinking group in a negative manner. It seems when those participants who's health is compromised to the point where they no longer consume alcohol are excluded from both groups, the health benefits are either greatly reduced or vanish entirely.
You might be both right, in that conservatives that think Musk is conservative want to hold him up as shining beacon, and conservatives who think Musk is liberal want to tear him down as a thief.
I don't know, this does sound a little bit like blaming Ford because your car was stolen when you handed the keys to some guy wearing a red coat and hat outside a posh restaurant. Is it really a security flaw with your car if the restaurant doesn't actually have valet parking?
And from the other article someone posted above, this apparently requires that you have the Tesla app on an out-of-date Android phone, the flaw used in the demonstration to steal the OAUTH data has already been patched...
Dude, chill out. This "it may be the last election" thing is hyperbolic and silly. There's no reason (yet) to believe that Trump would do anything to end elections, and claiming there is now looks a lot like crying wolf. If you think it's going to happen, fine, be vigilant, but wait for evidence before you start screaming about it.
As a refresher, some people were claiming the exact same thing about G. W. Bush, when he was in power and clearly he didn't cancel the 2008 elections, now did he?
You mean harmful actions like bankrupting someone because they don't want to bake a cake or arrange flowers?
Except the baker didn't go bankrupt, the Family Research Council raised $325k to pay their ~$135k fine, so it look like they're sitting pretty. A different bakery that also was protested for refusing to sell to a gay couple did close, but it was because the owner retired, according to her, it was "so [she] could spend more time with her grand-children". Her bakery was reported to still profitable when she closed it. The florist appears to have raised over $94,000 on Go fund me to pay her $1000 fine.
I supposed there could be others, did I miss someone who did go bankrupt?
I saw an article yesterday that breaks down the vote in an interesting way. It turns out that Clinton carried almost every county with a large economy. When you associated GDP with the counties where it originates, the counties that Clinton won account for about two-third of the economic activity in the country.
In many respects, that makes sense, Trump's "Make America Great Again" rhetoric would resonate most with people who have not had a great 8 years under Obama, and least with those who have.
Well, if she wasn't a democrat and married to Bill, she would have made a wonderful Republican presidential candidate, but I don't think the Tea Party would have accepted her, though.
I've gotta say, that if a massive Constitutional crisis doesn't rise to the level of "complete disaster" in your lexicon, I have no desire to see what would. Your scenario likely ends with arms being taken up by one side or another (followed by the others).
It wouldn't really be a constitutional crisis. Your country already has a procedure to handle this type of result, when there's no clear victor, congress picks the winner, and they'd pick Trump.
No, they believe in Free Speech for everyone. It's just that they are free to say whatever they want, and you are free to listen. It's the new right way.
And yet we have DNC operatives on video boasting about both giving and receiving cash to go and cause trouble at Trump events. Not to take all the fun out of your narrative or anything.
I've watched some of those videos, and what we actually have is some heavily edited videos that purport to show DNC operatives boasting about those things. Videos created by a man who has been repeatedly found to use deceptive editing to invent controversies. Unless we can review the entire recorded footage without the editing, we will never know what really happened. So while it looks bad, we already know, from past controversies that were exaggerated, that looks can be very deceiving.
I looked at the adds, they do say "Stop Trump" but they don't give any details on what you're doing. You might say "obviously it's protesting Trump", but all of the ones I saw were posted before the election. It looks like they were trying to recruit people to work on the political campaign and get out the vote. I seriously doubt anyone is willing to pay people $15 (and up) an hour to protest. The problem is you need to hire too many protesters and the rate is too high to make it a reasonable use of money.
One of the reporters at Mother Jones says Bannon told her exactly that:
"We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July.
Assuming she's not lying, it doesn't seem like Breitbart is denying it when the editor claims they are. Of course, according to Breibart's guide to the alt-right, they would probably deny representing all of the alt-right. Specifically, according to their guide, the alt-right can be split into two groups, the race-baiters who post offensive racist junk because they think it's funny and the actual hard-core racists who want to purify the country to make it "safe for whites" again. Breitbart seems to claim to have no association with the second group.
Have you actually looked into that list? It seems to just be reporters who are mentioned in the emails. The ones I looked at seemed to be because they asked Hillary Clinton a question and the reporter, the question and the answer were emailed to someone else. Other times there's a link to a story or video by that particular reporter.
In fact, they know how to completely monopolize the process to ensure that you only hear from republicans and democrats. Pretty clever bunch the 'stupid and the misinformed' are..
Slashdot Mirror
Implying that we have no right to complain?
You have every right to complain. Just try an make the complaints informative or insightful. Most of the complaints here are ridiculous histrionics.
Rarely have I seen as much whining, whinging, and cry-babying as I've seen from right wing posters on this issue, the professional right-wing victims are really out in force. They could be trumpeting the fact that Twitter has effectively said that nothing Trump has posted so far is hate speech, but instead they have to throw a little hissy fit over how Twitter said even the President-elect can be banned if he breaks the rules.
You know that gay bars don't refuse service to straight people, right?
A bakery should be able to refuse to support an activity or event of which they do not approve. If a gay man is marrying a woman (perfectly OK with Christians), they should not be able to refuse service just because the customer is gay. That's discrimination that has been deemed illegal. Refusing to cater (provide a cake for) a wedding between two men should be perfectly legal because private persons have a right of (dis)association.
Businesses no longer have that right because it was abused. They are not legally allowed to refuse to do business with people based on certain characteristics because those refusals were used in an organized manner to punish and torment people for who they are (race, sexual-orientation) or what they believe (religion). Imagine, for instance, living in a town where the grocery stores refused to do business with you because of the colour of your skin. I doubt you'd think it was fair for them to try and starve you out of town. On the flip side, those laws also protect businesses, because it no longer makes sense for the current customers of a business to boycott it just because it does business with people with the "wrong" coloured skin. Every business is required by law to ignore certain differences, so if they shut down one with a boycott, any business that replaces it will still have to do business with those people anyway.
Even given that, there are things that a baker can refuse to do. For instance, it is my understanding that the baker can refuse to decorate a cake with a same-sex wedding theme. However, they can't refuse to sell a generic wedding cake to someone just because the person is gay.
Yes, the day I lost my virginity.
I know...citation needed, right?
Wait, so you're saying on the day you lost your virginity you were sexually attracted to both men and women, had one willing and available partner of each sex, but for some reason you had to choose once for all which gender would have sex with? And after that point you lost all interest in the gender you did not select?
If that's the case, that's playing with fire. If people are afraid of signing up because Twitter will apply biased enforcement even to the President of the United States of America, that hurts their bottom line. Some people won't sign up, others will go elsewhere for more controversial topics.
Not really, Twitter doesn't actually want the people who won't abide by their rules. Those people damage the Twitter brand, drive off some users, and make it harder for the twitter owners to cash out of the business (and reduce the amount they would get for the business). Then there's also a flip side: the idea that Twitter's rules apply to everyone no matter who they are might appeal to some people, whether they are current or future users.
According to this breakdown Trump won the popular vote in 2,584 counties and Clinton won the popular vote in 472 counties.
You're confused, Trump has a lead in the electoral college. Trump and others are not getting frosted over that. Irrelevant your 2.5 million popular vote, we don't elect presidents that way because otherwise career criminals with no regard for national security or the rule of law like Clinton would get elected by the half of society that is parasites.
There's a problem with your view, Clinton's voters represent about 64% of the U.S. economy.
There are also some indications of health benefits of small intake, but they tend to not be conclusive.
Actually, the "health benefits" have, may have been debunked and found to be systemic failures in the studies that originally found them. To put it simply, the drinking group in every test, by necessity, does not include anyone who no longer consumes alcohol due to health concerns, while the non-drinking groups may contain such individuals. This biases the health results on the non-drinking group in a negative manner. It seems when those participants who's health is compromised to the point where they no longer consume alcohol are excluded from both groups, the health benefits are either greatly reduced or vanish entirely.
You might be both right, in that conservatives that think Musk is conservative want to hold him up as shining beacon, and conservatives who think Musk is liberal want to tear him down as a thief.
I don't know, this does sound a little bit like blaming Ford because your car was stolen when you handed the keys to some guy wearing a red coat and hat outside a posh restaurant. Is it really a security flaw with your car if the restaurant doesn't actually have valet parking?
And from the other article someone posted above, this apparently requires that you have the Tesla app on an out-of-date Android phone, the flaw used in the demonstration to steal the OAUTH data has already been patched...
Indeed, as a former mayor of Toronto, Mel Lastman, said about the crack-smoking Mayor, Rob Ford:
There's a high probability that when Trump is done, Bush will be able to show his face in public again...
Dude, chill out. This "it may be the last election" thing is hyperbolic and silly. There's no reason (yet) to believe that Trump would do anything to end elections, and claiming there is now looks a lot like crying wolf. If you think it's going to happen, fine, be vigilant, but wait for evidence before you start screaming about it.
As a refresher, some people were claiming the exact same thing about G. W. Bush, when he was in power and clearly he didn't cancel the 2008 elections, now did he?
Actually, the evidence indicates that more of the masses believed her (1.7m+) but still lost because America is strange...
You mean harmful actions like bankrupting someone because they don't want to bake a cake or arrange flowers?
Except the baker didn't go bankrupt, the Family Research Council raised $325k to pay their ~$135k fine, so it look like they're sitting pretty. A different bakery that also was protested for refusing to sell to a gay couple did close, but it was because the owner retired, according to her, it was "so [she] could spend more time with her grand-children". Her bakery was reported to still profitable when she closed it. The florist appears to have raised over $94,000 on Go fund me to pay her $1000 fine.
I supposed there could be others, did I miss someone who did go bankrupt?
I saw an article yesterday that breaks down the vote in an interesting way. It turns out that Clinton carried almost every county with a large economy. When you associated GDP with the counties where it originates, the counties that Clinton won account for about two-third of the economic activity in the country.
In many respects, that makes sense, Trump's "Make America Great Again" rhetoric would resonate most with people who have not had a great 8 years under Obama, and least with those who have.
Well, if she wasn't a democrat and married to Bill, she would have made a wonderful Republican presidential candidate, but I don't think the Tea Party would have accepted her, though.
I've gotta say, that if a massive Constitutional crisis doesn't rise to the level of "complete disaster" in your lexicon, I have no desire to see what would. Your scenario likely ends with arms being taken up by one side or another (followed by the others).
It wouldn't really be a constitutional crisis. Your country already has a procedure to handle this type of result, when there's no clear victor, congress picks the winner, and they'd pick Trump.
No, they believe in Free Speech for everyone. It's just that they are free to say whatever they want, and you are free to listen. It's the new right way.
And yet we have DNC operatives on video boasting about both giving and receiving cash to go and cause trouble at Trump events. Not to take all the fun out of your narrative or anything.
I've watched some of those videos, and what we actually have is some heavily edited videos that purport to show DNC operatives boasting about those things. Videos created by a man who has been repeatedly found to use deceptive editing to invent controversies. Unless we can review the entire recorded footage without the editing, we will never know what really happened. So while it looks bad, we already know, from past controversies that were exaggerated, that looks can be very deceiving.
I looked at the adds, they do say "Stop Trump" but they don't give any details on what you're doing. You might say "obviously it's protesting Trump", but all of the ones I saw were posted before the election. It looks like they were trying to recruit people to work on the political campaign and get out the vote. I seriously doubt anyone is willing to pay people $15 (and up) an hour to protest. The problem is you need to hire too many protesters and the rate is too high to make it a reasonable use of money.
One of the reporters at Mother Jones says Bannon told her exactly that:
Assuming she's not lying, it doesn't seem like Breitbart is denying it when the editor claims they are. Of course, according to Breibart's guide to the alt-right, they would probably deny representing all of the alt-right. Specifically, according to their guide, the alt-right can be split into two groups, the race-baiters who post offensive racist junk because they think it's funny and the actual hard-core racists who want to purify the country to make it "safe for whites" again. Breitbart seems to claim to have no association with the second group.
What I see happening is the laying of groundwork for the implementation of a US version of "1984"'s "MiniTruth".
Of course you do.
Have you actually looked into that list? It seems to just be reporters who are mentioned in the emails. The ones I looked at seemed to be because they asked Hillary Clinton a question and the reporter, the question and the answer were emailed to someone else. Other times there's a link to a story or video by that particular reporter.
In fact, they know how to completely monopolize the process to ensure that you only hear from republicans and democrats. Pretty clever bunch the 'stupid and the misinformed' are..
Loud is not the same as clever.
Not all of them, and the real problem is that the stupid and the misinformed are always so much more confident that they know everything.