It says that a baker can refuse to put what he considers hate speech on a cake
Isn't this kind of the point? Who defines hate speech and those that get to make that definition hold a disproportionate amount of influence on our elections if they control the space by which national dialogue occurs. Hate speech is not quoting a few bible versus with two X'ed out groomsmen.
FTFA:
The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.
On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."
It might be offensive but it was offensive to the christian bakers belief to be complicit with a gay wedding.
Being a monopoly doesn't detract from precedent of the law that turns companies that have public convenience and necessity into impartial entities of public interest. Either the government should not get involved and allow for companies ability to discriminate because private or the government should get involved when it becomes necessary for the public that those entities be impartial. Freedom of speech is the foundation upon which our society was built on. If social media can influence our elections, 'fake news' is an issue, and much of the national dialogue occurs in social media then it becomes necessary for those companies to be impartial for the public good. That is a much better course of action than any Ministry of Truth.
Any business has to abide by some rules. We force companies to uphold various ideals and principles we hold as a nation and society. Landlines were seen as critical in a modern society for citizens to participate and telecommunication companies cannot deny service on political ideology. If social media companies are of the same criticality then they should have the same responsibility. If Obama and the Media are correct in 'Fake news' influencing the last election, doesn't that thrust those companies into the same critical stewardship position as telecommunications and bakers?
You can slap together a new social medium today if you like, and it will cost very little until you get acceptance.
Why didn't the couple use a different bakery? If all of the social media companies have the same 'hate speech' policies that can ban ideology and much of the national dialogue occurs in those networks, on top of subsidized infrastructure, what will that do to our elections and society that wouldn't happen if telecommunications did the same thing to landlines? There are only so many options and not everyone can Zuckerberg their way a new Facebook.
If they had merely refused and accepted the small fine for not living up to the legal duties of a public business, we'd never have heard of the case.
I don't think so because in Colorado there is blatant hypocrisy in the enforcement of the law. Like anything there is more to it than just the headlines of course.
Or he was in a 3 way interview and messed up what he was trying to say and fumbled around the ideas in his head and didn't have time to expand.
If he is in a position to see that trend and can comment on it, if it is true I don't care how it seems. I want to know if it is true or not. If it's not true, lambaste away.
I don't know, honestly. That is something that I would like to know. Why these CEOs? Is there a trend of 'uncivic' behavior from Asian CEOs compared to other nationalities or races or CEOs in general? Is there any evidence to support that claim? I would rather see if the statement is true or not then have an emotional reaction from misrepresenting statements that are unfounded in reality.
Are those CEOs outsourcing citizen talent for foreign talent? Undermines civic society. Are those CEOs taking advantage of H1B policies at the expense of citizens? Undermines civic society. Are those CEOs using their citizen workforce to train their foreign replacements? Undermines civic society. Are those CEOs lobbying for more of this advantage at the expense of citizens? Undermines civic society.
Should I go on? Whether he is correct in that '75% of CEOs from Asia/South Asia' is a matter of looking at their policies and seeing if they are not good for citizens. Has that been done? Is he in a position an informed statement? I don't know. Why don't you question the validity of the claim instead of misinterpreting what he says to fit your bias.
I wonder what happened before the 50s that would cause 'a modest lifestyle'. I wonder how long it takes to dismantle an economic war machine. What was the 'modest lifestyle' like during the 'Roaring Twenties'?
You bring up AT&T: are you talking about landlines or mobile? AT&T mobile probably could block hate speech from being sent across their private network in the form of texts. They would probably lose some customers to Verizon if they did, but they have that right. Landlines are a little different. You can't block hate speech being spoken across a land-line there are technical difficulties. The closest example would be if someone repeatedly harassed another person by ringing them up and making hate speech directly too them.
In this instance I am talking about landlines. I understand that the law isn't uniform across all mediums because the law hasn't kept up with technology. Excluding illegal activity such as harassment. No one is arguing that harassment should be allowed. I think much of the point of this conversation has been had before with landlines but that has fallen by the wayside because of new technology and a complicit government.
Facebook is not able to refuse service based on Race, Religion, National Origin, or Sex anymore than a baker can.
Actually, a baker can refuse service based on someones religious belief. but a baker cannot use their religion to influence their policy. The baker is unable to control their policy of use. Telecommunication companies cannot choose their policy of use, why should Facebook and Twitter be exempt from the same civic responsibility? Landlines were seen as critical in a modern society for citizens to participate. If social media companies are of the same criticality then they should have the same responsibility. If Obama and the Media are correct in 'Fake news' influencing the last election, doesn't that thrust those companies into the same stewardship position as landlines and bakers?
Sure, Facebook isn't denying you access to their service because you are Male or Christian, but they can deny you based on conservatism or liberalism because those are not protected classes. I guess, that means that the baker should have denied service because the gay couple in question were liberal instead of gay. Social media companies can overcome the technical difficulties you mention, does that mean that they are get to be arbiters of truth and politically acceptable speech when increasing number of citizens use their service? Is there any other service of such importance that we don't forfeit their civic responsibility? (important in that it can affect our elections like Obama has said)
You say I can go to Google+ but then why didn't the couple use a different bakery? If all of the social media companies have the same 'hate speech' policies that can ban ideology and much of the national dialogue occurs in those networks, on top of subsidized infrastructure, what will that do to our elections and society that wouldn't happen if telecommunications did the same thing to landlines? There are only so many options and not everyone can Zuckerberg their way a new Facebook.
It's private just like a baker restricting their service on religious grounds until the government steps in and then the baker becomes a steward of rights for protected classes. Would you be okay with restrictions on access to phone lines on ideological grounds from AT&T? If enabling conversation on ideological neutral infrastructure is important, how is that different on the AT&T fiber lines vs Facebook servers? Why is AT&T forced to adopt civic responsibility but Facebook does not when Facebook can influence our elections?
Facebook could not exist without the infrastructure subsidized by taxes.
Is your solution to have governments punish companies for not connecting everyone's call? Do you really want the government to have that much power over telecommunication companies? Think of the oversight necessary to enforce this law. You would have thousands, perhaps millions of people complaining to the government that these companies aren't connecting their call, and if the telecommunication companies deny that this call was ever connected on their platforms, the government would have to have permanent access to the phone lines to monitor if the connections are in fact ever made. Who is to determine how big a telecommunications company is before the government takes control of it?
FTFY. We force a baker to be stewards of protected classes for a wedding cake. We force telecommunication companies to be stewards of access to infrastructure. Social media influenced the election and if Obama is to be believed about 'fake news', shouldn't enablers of speech be held to the same standard as the baker or AT&T with the ideals we deem important as society? Social media wouldn't exist without the infrastructure yet you would be upset if a phone company shut off your access because of your political ideology. If discourse is mostly happening on social media, are you okay with those companies able to influence the election as if a phone company could restrict ideology?
The people having content removed are free to set up their own web sites and host whatever content they want. They are not granted the same rights to post whatever they want on someone else's private property.
I guess in the same vein that if AT&T restricted access on political ideological grounds, you are free to set up your own lines? Facebook and others can't exist without the infrastructure that is subsidized by tax payers. Why are enablers of speech not stewards of speech like a baker is a steward to protected classes for wedding cakes? Last I checked, wedding cakes don't have the same impact on our elections as these enablers of speech do if Obama and the media are to be believed with their 'fake news' narrative.
They operate on the infrastructure that is managed by AT&T and the likes that is subsidized by tax payers. A baker is a steward of protected classes for wedding cakes. AT&T are stewards for access to infrastructure. Why are enablers of speech not protecting free speech if we value freedom of speech as a society?
If Facebook is a soapbox in a town-square, why should they have the right to restrict what is said on that box if it cannot exist without the town-square when we don't even hold the same for the town-square itself?
A better way to say it is: a newspaper says something. Facebook allows others to say something. A baker becomes a steward of protected classes. AT&T becomes a steward of infrastructure. Why are enablers of speech not stewards of speech?
When is Social Medias influence on elections and society enough that they should be stewards of free speech? Just like phone companies are stewards by not restricting on political ideological grounds. Or a baker who becomes a steward of protected classes for wedding cakes? We seem to think 'you are a private business and do what you want' until you become a baker exercising religious belief or AT&T that has been determined critical for the nation. If medias influence on the elections are a critical issue that Obama and Media have been parading about 'fake news', then maybe we should take the next step by saying; "when you become a platform of speech you are a steward of free speech". Being an enabler of speech is no different than enabling access to the phone lines that we paid for via tax subsidies.
It maybe their backyard but it is the phone/cable lines that Social Media operate. Can an ISP restrict their access on politically ideological grounds? AT&T? A better analogy would be in AT&Ts/ISPs back yard and Facebook owns a soapbox. Are platforms of speech just as important as the infrastructure that transport that speech? When you put up soap box in the town square, why should you be able to restrict what someone says on that soap box if that soap box cannot exist without the town-square?
The baker is forced to be a steward of protected classes. AT&T is a steward of infrastructure. Why are Facebook and Twitter special when they can influence society to a greater degree? We force companies to uphold ideals we as a society deem important, such as protected classes and politically neutral access to infrastructure. Why is the freedom of speech not important enough that enablers protect it?
I think that candidate would have been lambasted like Trump was. What would his skin color have to do with his character that was on display in the video? Whether his candidacy would have 'lasted one day after that tape became public' is speculative because 1) normally it would end ANY politician. 2) despite the shallow character on display it was always in comparison to Clinton. 3) Trump is a reaction to PC and identity politics, so if a black candidate encapsulated that reaction, why would his skin color matter to his candidacies survival if the poor character was not enough to derail it? How does that show anything resembling white privilege? All you're doing is ignoring the parts you don't like and filling in those gaps with 'racism'. It's bullshit.
I think we're done here.
lol, right. Call everyone racist and misrepresent what they say but you are morally superior. You're an idiot.
Provable, eh? So, tell me how a middle class white guy is more privileged than Obama. Obama's successor is the best proof of white privilege.
Right, everything exists in a vacuum and it has nothing to do with how shitty Clinton was. You should look at the exit polls and compare them to other elections, minorities gave Trump the presidency, not uneducated white males. Trump won because Clinton. Idiot.
That has been the argument of racists since Jesse Owens won four gold medals in Berlin, 1936 and shattered the notion of white superiority. Well done.
Wow, are you really that selective in your reading and is your bubble that opaque that you reading comprehension is forfeit? The context: "When is statistical disparity not indicative of racism?" Virtue signal some more and grand stand how much better you are than everyone else while being completely deluded and delusional... And you think it was white privilege that lost Clinton the election... Just wow.
I think one of the difficulties of economics is that it border lines psychology in the various assumptions of human behavior it makes for the various models. In my opinion (for whatever that is worth), a system that acknowledges the shortcomings of human behavior is more likely to succeed than a system that favors a groups notion of what is acceptable human behavior. Capitalism works because it doesn't try to inhibit a part of the human condition but rather tries to take advantage of it. Compared to communism that tries to justify the actions of the group over the individual because of a sense of justice or societal well being that may or may not be true for any particular policy or action by the state. Capitalism has problems, no doubt like any human endeavor, that is primarily based on it 'working too well' or greed running in excess that becomes problematic for society i.e. trending toward monopoly and being amoralistic.
What drives ambition? I think ambition and greed are two sides of the same coin. Even their definitions allow overlap in some regard: "desire and determination to achieve success[popularity or profit]" or "intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.". Really, the distinction as far as definitions go is selfish (I don't think you need 'intense' to be greedy) and determination.
Just as any other human emotion and motivator, you cannot have one without the other and the more 'positive' version we idealize and prop up while we bemoan and curse the 'negative'. If we ignore the negative side of any emotion we are lying to ourselves about our nature. If we are not honest with our nature we are more likely to succumb to the more savage parts of it because we won't recognize it for what it is. Capitalism allows the greedy and ambitious to satiate their desires in a way that can benefit society. Communism requires the greedy and ambitious to subjugate their desires to the state or become part of the state.
Greed is bad except when it revolutionizes an industry with assembly lines and mass production. Ambition is good except when that ambition is for something bad. Hitler was ambitious after all.:)
Provable, eh? So, tell me how a middle class white guy is more privileged than Obama. How is a white family in a trailer park more privileged than Jonathan Butler?
If there is privilege, wouldn't Asians be the top of the list of privileged? They make more money and are better educated than any other demographic in the USA. Where is the Asian privilege?
You know why 'race/gender/orientation' privilege is bullshit? It takes complex socioeconomic circumstances an individual may experience and reduce them down to a single attribute to be extrapolated to a group that shares that attribute. Where is that same logic applied anywhere else that isn't thoroughly rejected as bullshit?
Racists and sexists use that bullshit to justify racist behavior. Like this cunt or this bitch.
When is statistical disparity not indicative of racism? Or is the NBA and NFL just a bunch of racists because of black privilege in sports.
Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.
This is probably why 'news' has turned into 3rd party twitter feeds."Did you see what this person said on ze Twitters! ZOMG, You should feel how we think you should feel about this."
It really seems that those outlets really don't know how to handle Twitter and the like when there is nothing to report on in a 24 hour news cycle.
You, as a free agent, have the responsibility to inform your vote to clear your conscience and understand that everyone is trying to convince you of something. You should promote critical thinking and civic responsibility instead of evangelizing the 'fake news' i.e. propaganda in the 21st century. The methods by which it spreads has changed but that does not change propagandas potential to influence the real world. Fake news has always been around we just called it different things. We were able to overcome those problems then as we will today. We are not special or unique with the difficulties of civilized society just because we communicate faster.
Even when the eye witness testimony was found to be false and questionable to begin with, it was still pushed by media as the correct narrative through bastardized virtue signals. It is not the only instance were the narrative is more important than reporting the facts. It is rational to disregard sources that continually lie and misconstrue the truth whether that be through omission, one side representation, virtue signaling, ideological pandering, or narrative crafting at the expense of the evidence. It isn't one instance of poor journalism that creates distrust to news outlets. It's the continuous diarrhea of poor journalism that suits a narrative at the expense of facts and objective reasoning. Fake news has always been around. The only difference today is that MSM lost legitimacy and authority they had because they abandoned journalistic integrity and they have to compete with other snake oil salesmen.
Treat people with respect, and explain the truth (if it is the truth) in a clear and compelling way, and you'd be surprised how well that works.
This is how you become a legitimate authority on the news. Not some government body of truthiness. Seriously, the MSM lost authority and legitimacy because they did just the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
It says that a baker can refuse to put what he considers hate speech on a cake
Isn't this kind of the point? Who defines hate speech and those that get to make that definition hold a disproportionate amount of influence on our elections if they control the space by which national dialogue occurs. Hate speech is not quoting a few bible versus with two X'ed out groomsmen.
FTFA:
The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.
On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."
It might be offensive but it was offensive to the christian bakers belief to be complicit with a gay wedding.
Being a monopoly doesn't detract from precedent of the law that turns companies that have public convenience and necessity into impartial entities of public interest. Either the government should not get involved and allow for companies ability to discriminate because private or the government should get involved when it becomes necessary for the public that those entities be impartial. Freedom of speech is the foundation upon which our society was built on. If social media can influence our elections, 'fake news' is an issue, and much of the national dialogue occurs in social media then it becomes necessary for those companies to be impartial for the public good. That is a much better course of action than any Ministry of Truth.
Any business has to abide by some rules. We force companies to uphold various ideals and principles we hold as a nation and society. Landlines were seen as critical in a modern society for citizens to participate and telecommunication companies cannot deny service on political ideology. If social media companies are of the same criticality then they should have the same responsibility. If Obama and the Media are correct in 'Fake news' influencing the last election, doesn't that thrust those companies into the same critical stewardship position as telecommunications and bakers?
You can slap together a new social medium today if you like, and it will cost very little until you get acceptance.
Why didn't the couple use a different bakery? If all of the social media companies have the same 'hate speech' policies that can ban ideology and much of the national dialogue occurs in those networks, on top of subsidized infrastructure, what will that do to our elections and society that wouldn't happen if telecommunications did the same thing to landlines? There are only so many options and not everyone can Zuckerberg their way a new Facebook.
There were a couple instances of this occurring; one in Oregon and one in Colorado that I know of.
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015...
If they had merely refused and accepted the small fine for not living up to the legal duties of a public business, we'd never have heard of the case.
I don't think so because in Colorado there is blatant hypocrisy in the enforcement of the law. Like anything there is more to it than just the headlines of course.
Call wolf enough times people start ignoring you and wolf warnings even if they are true. Are you really surprised by this?
Still, if you want to get anywhere, prove him wrong.
Or he was in a 3 way interview and messed up what he was trying to say and fumbled around the ideas in his head and didn't have time to expand.
If he is in a position to see that trend and can comment on it, if it is true I don't care how it seems. I want to know if it is true or not. If it's not true, lambaste away.
I don't know, honestly. That is something that I would like to know. Why these CEOs? Is there a trend of 'uncivic' behavior from Asian CEOs compared to other nationalities or races or CEOs in general? Is there any evidence to support that claim? I would rather see if the statement is true or not then have an emotional reaction from misrepresenting statements that are unfounded in reality.
Are those CEOs outsourcing citizen talent for foreign talent? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs taking advantage of H1B policies at the expense of citizens? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs using their citizen workforce to train their foreign replacements? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs lobbying for more of this advantage at the expense of citizens? Undermines civic society.
Should I go on? Whether he is correct in that '75% of CEOs from Asia/South Asia' is a matter of looking at their policies and seeing if they are not good for citizens. Has that been done? Is he in a position an informed statement? I don't know. Why don't you question the validity of the claim instead of misinterpreting what he says to fit your bias.
I wonder what happened before the 50s that would cause 'a modest lifestyle'. I wonder how long it takes to dismantle an economic war machine. What was the 'modest lifestyle' like during the 'Roaring Twenties'?
You bring up AT&T: are you talking about landlines or mobile? AT&T mobile probably could block hate speech from being sent across their private network in the form of texts. They would probably lose some customers to Verizon if they did, but they have that right. Landlines are a little different. You can't block hate speech being spoken across a land-line there are technical difficulties. The closest example would be if someone repeatedly harassed another person by ringing them up and making hate speech directly too them.
In this instance I am talking about landlines. I understand that the law isn't uniform across all mediums because the law hasn't kept up with technology. Excluding illegal activity such as harassment. No one is arguing that harassment should be allowed. I think much of the point of this conversation has been had before with landlines but that has fallen by the wayside because of new technology and a complicit government.
Facebook is not able to refuse service based on Race, Religion, National Origin, or Sex anymore than a baker can.
Actually, a baker can refuse service based on someones religious belief. but a baker cannot use their religion to influence their policy. The baker is unable to control their policy of use. Telecommunication companies cannot choose their policy of use, why should Facebook and Twitter be exempt from the same civic responsibility? Landlines were seen as critical in a modern society for citizens to participate. If social media companies are of the same criticality then they should have the same responsibility. If Obama and the Media are correct in 'Fake news' influencing the last election, doesn't that thrust those companies into the same stewardship position as landlines and bakers?
Sure, Facebook isn't denying you access to their service because you are Male or Christian, but they can deny you based on conservatism or liberalism because those are not protected classes. I guess, that means that the baker should have denied service because the gay couple in question were liberal instead of gay. Social media companies can overcome the technical difficulties you mention, does that mean that they are get to be arbiters of truth and politically acceptable speech when increasing number of citizens use their service? Is there any other service of such importance that we don't forfeit their civic responsibility? (important in that it can affect our elections like Obama has said)
You say I can go to Google+ but then why didn't the couple use a different bakery? If all of the social media companies have the same 'hate speech' policies that can ban ideology and much of the national dialogue occurs in those networks, on top of subsidized infrastructure, what will that do to our elections and society that wouldn't happen if telecommunications did the same thing to landlines? There are only so many options and not everyone can Zuckerberg their way a new Facebook.
It's private just like a baker restricting their service on religious grounds until the government steps in and then the baker becomes a steward of rights for protected classes. Would you be okay with restrictions on access to phone lines on ideological grounds from AT&T? If enabling conversation on ideological neutral infrastructure is important, how is that different on the AT&T fiber lines vs Facebook servers? Why is AT&T forced to adopt civic responsibility but Facebook does not when Facebook can influence our elections?
Facebook could not exist without the infrastructure subsidized by taxes.
Is your solution to have governments punish companies for not connecting everyone's call? Do you really want the government to have that much power over telecommunication companies? Think of the oversight necessary to enforce this law. You would have thousands, perhaps millions of people complaining to the government that these companies aren't connecting their call, and if the telecommunication companies deny that this call was ever connected on their platforms, the government would have to have permanent access to the phone lines to monitor if the connections are in fact ever made. Who is to determine how big a telecommunications company is before the government takes control of it?
FTFY. We force a baker to be stewards of protected classes for a wedding cake. We force telecommunication companies to be stewards of access to infrastructure. Social media influenced the election and if Obama is to be believed about 'fake news', shouldn't enablers of speech be held to the same standard as the baker or AT&T with the ideals we deem important as society? Social media wouldn't exist without the infrastructure yet you would be upset if a phone company shut off your access because of your political ideology. If discourse is mostly happening on social media, are you okay with those companies able to influence the election as if a phone company could restrict ideology?
The people having content removed are free to set up their own web sites and host whatever content they want. They are not granted the same rights to post whatever they want on someone else's private property.
I guess in the same vein that if AT&T restricted access on political ideological grounds, you are free to set up your own lines? Facebook and others can't exist without the infrastructure that is subsidized by tax payers. Why are enablers of speech not stewards of speech like a baker is a steward to protected classes for wedding cakes? Last I checked, wedding cakes don't have the same impact on our elections as these enablers of speech do if Obama and the media are to be believed with their 'fake news' narrative.
They operate on the infrastructure that is managed by AT&T and the likes that is subsidized by tax payers. A baker is a steward of protected classes for wedding cakes. AT&T are stewards for access to infrastructure. Why are enablers of speech not protecting free speech if we value freedom of speech as a society?
If Facebook is a soapbox in a town-square, why should they have the right to restrict what is said on that box if it cannot exist without the town-square when we don't even hold the same for the town-square itself?
A better way to say it is: a newspaper says something. Facebook allows others to say something. A baker becomes a steward of protected classes. AT&T becomes a steward of infrastructure. Why are enablers of speech not stewards of speech?
When is Social Medias influence on elections and society enough that they should be stewards of free speech? Just like phone companies are stewards by not restricting on political ideological grounds. Or a baker who becomes a steward of protected classes for wedding cakes? We seem to think 'you are a private business and do what you want' until you become a baker exercising religious belief or AT&T that has been determined critical for the nation. If medias influence on the elections are a critical issue that Obama and Media have been parading about 'fake news', then maybe we should take the next step by saying; "when you become a platform of speech you are a steward of free speech". Being an enabler of speech is no different than enabling access to the phone lines that we paid for via tax subsidies.
It maybe their backyard but it is the phone/cable lines that Social Media operate. Can an ISP restrict their access on politically ideological grounds? AT&T? A better analogy would be in AT&Ts/ISPs back yard and Facebook owns a soapbox. Are platforms of speech just as important as the infrastructure that transport that speech? When you put up soap box in the town square, why should you be able to restrict what someone says on that soap box if that soap box cannot exist without the town-square?
The baker is forced to be a steward of protected classes. AT&T is a steward of infrastructure. Why are Facebook and Twitter special when they can influence society to a greater degree? We force companies to uphold ideals we as a society deem important, such as protected classes and politically neutral access to infrastructure. Why is the freedom of speech not important enough that enablers protect it?
And this just shows that you don't understand what I was saying. Good job for poor reading comprehension.
I think that candidate would have been lambasted like Trump was. What would his skin color have to do with his character that was on display in the video? Whether his candidacy would have 'lasted one day after that tape became public' is speculative because 1) normally it would end ANY politician. 2) despite the shallow character on display it was always in comparison to Clinton. 3) Trump is a reaction to PC and identity politics, so if a black candidate encapsulated that reaction, why would his skin color matter to his candidacies survival if the poor character was not enough to derail it? How does that show anything resembling white privilege? All you're doing is ignoring the parts you don't like and filling in those gaps with 'racism'. It's bullshit.
I think we're done here.
lol, right. Call everyone racist and misrepresent what they say but you are morally superior. You're an idiot.
Provable, eh? So, tell me how a middle class white guy is more privileged than Obama.
Obama's successor is the best proof of white privilege.
Right, everything exists in a vacuum and it has nothing to do with how shitty Clinton was. You should look at the exit polls and compare them to other elections, minorities gave Trump the presidency, not uneducated white males. Trump won because Clinton. Idiot.
That has been the argument of racists since Jesse Owens won four gold medals in Berlin, 1936 and shattered the notion of white superiority. Well done.
Wow, are you really that selective in your reading and is your bubble that opaque that you reading comprehension is forfeit? The context: "When is statistical disparity not indicative of racism?" Virtue signal some more and grand stand how much better you are than everyone else while being completely deluded and delusional... And you think it was white privilege that lost Clinton the election... Just wow.
I think one of the difficulties of economics is that it border lines psychology in the various assumptions of human behavior it makes for the various models. In my opinion (for whatever that is worth), a system that acknowledges the shortcomings of human behavior is more likely to succeed than a system that favors a groups notion of what is acceptable human behavior. Capitalism works because it doesn't try to inhibit a part of the human condition but rather tries to take advantage of it. Compared to communism that tries to justify the actions of the group over the individual because of a sense of justice or societal well being that may or may not be true for any particular policy or action by the state. Capitalism has problems, no doubt like any human endeavor, that is primarily based on it 'working too well' or greed running in excess that becomes problematic for society i.e. trending toward monopoly and being amoralistic.
What drives ambition? I think ambition and greed are two sides of the same coin. Even their definitions allow overlap in some regard: "desire and determination to achieve success[popularity or profit]" or "intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.". Really, the distinction as far as definitions go is selfish (I don't think you need 'intense' to be greedy) and determination.
Just as any other human emotion and motivator, you cannot have one without the other and the more 'positive' version we idealize and prop up while we bemoan and curse the 'negative'. If we ignore the negative side of any emotion we are lying to ourselves about our nature. If we are not honest with our nature we are more likely to succumb to the more savage parts of it because we won't recognize it for what it is. Capitalism allows the greedy and ambitious to satiate their desires in a way that can benefit society. Communism requires the greedy and ambitious to subjugate their desires to the state or become part of the state.
Greed is bad except when it revolutionizes an industry with assembly lines and mass production. Ambition is good except when that ambition is for something bad. Hitler was ambitious after all. :)
Provable, eh? So, tell me how a middle class white guy is more privileged than Obama. How is a white family in a trailer park more privileged than Jonathan Butler?
If there is privilege, wouldn't Asians be the top of the list of privileged? They make more money and are better educated than any other demographic in the USA. Where is the Asian privilege?
You know why 'race/gender/orientation' privilege is bullshit? It takes complex socioeconomic circumstances an individual may experience and reduce them down to a single attribute to be extrapolated to a group that shares that attribute. Where is that same logic applied anywhere else that isn't thoroughly rejected as bullshit?
Racists and sexists use that bullshit to justify racist behavior. Like this cunt or this bitch.
When is statistical disparity not indicative of racism? Or is the NBA and NFL just a bunch of racists because of black privilege in sports.
Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.
This is probably why 'news' has turned into 3rd party twitter feeds."Did you see what this person said on ze Twitters! ZOMG, You should feel how we think you should feel about this."
It really seems that those outlets really don't know how to handle Twitter and the like when there is nothing to report on in a 24 hour news cycle.
I post on Slashdot for fun. Beyond that I don't give a shit.
That's just what the government wants you to think, man.
You, as a free agent, have the responsibility to inform your vote to clear your conscience and understand that everyone is trying to convince you of something. You should promote critical thinking and civic responsibility instead of evangelizing the 'fake news' i.e. propaganda in the 21st century. The methods by which it spreads has changed but that does not change propagandas potential to influence the real world. Fake news has always been around we just called it different things. We were able to overcome those problems then as we will today. We are not special or unique with the difficulties of civilized society just because we communicate faster.
Even when the eye witness testimony was found to be false and questionable to begin with, it was still pushed by media as the correct narrative through bastardized virtue signals. It is not the only instance were the narrative is more important than reporting the facts. It is rational to disregard sources that continually lie and misconstrue the truth whether that be through omission, one side representation, virtue signaling, ideological pandering, or narrative crafting at the expense of the evidence. It isn't one instance of poor journalism that creates distrust to news outlets. It's the continuous diarrhea of poor journalism that suits a narrative at the expense of facts and objective reasoning. Fake news has always been around. The only difference today is that MSM lost legitimacy and authority they had because they abandoned journalistic integrity and they have to compete with other snake oil salesmen.
Treat people with respect, and explain the truth (if it is the truth) in a clear and compelling way, and you'd be surprised how well that works.
This is how you become a legitimate authority on the news. Not some government body of truthiness. Seriously, the MSM lost authority and legitimacy because they did just the opposite.