Then we should be celebrating as the polluting US bully is knocked off zir perch as unelected world police? And China and India, developing nations of color, deservedly take its place? I'm not seeing the problem here?
That's a slur, not an argument. Every time, it's never trying to refute the argument. Every time, it's the same old game of "I discredit the speaker, therefore your entire worldview is invalid!" At no point did you address the Left's war on free speech, nor the fascist tendencies that led to this war in the first place. All you do is try to discredit the speaker - me - instead of address the issues. You neither engaged with nor refuted Google's position that speech should be suppressed if Google doesn't agree with it.
Johnathan Haidt talks about you here, "they're trained carefully basically how to discredit your opponent. They learn to slur, they do not learn to argue."
Well, how does it feel to be on the same side with fascists? Who seeks oppression rather than freedom of speech? There's only ONE side doing that in politics today. When you suppress free speech with violence, you are not fighting fascism - you are the fascist!
How would the world be a worse place with a mass die-off of working class deplorables, deliberate or otherwise? The standard wisdom is that these people have outlived their welcome and need to be replaced by new immigrants.
"Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone elseâ(TM)s academic freedom. (This is âoepolitical correctness.â) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control."
Yes, yes they are. Look at this interview with an NYT journalist and Joe Rogan. She is so full of herself and 100% convinced she is *right about everything*. She is used to being in an echo chamber and is badly affected by Rogan asking her questions about what she believes. She smears Tulsi Gabbard for being a Russian sycohpant, and then can't tell us what a sycophant is.
I love how she thinks Tulsi's stance on gay rights as an indoctrinated teenager, prior to her political career, is somehow pertinent, but Hillary's anti-gay and racist positions, in office, as a grown-ass politician, for most of her adult life, are somehow unfair to bring up.ï
The NYT journalist uses words without knowing what they mean, and she is in an influential position at the New York Times. This explains a lot.
The topic is the "blame the dirty foreigners" narrative, which is always bullshit. You can tell it's bullshit because people blame the foreigners for their own faults.
Still sticking with the "those dirty foreigners did this" narrative? Seriously? It wasn't foreigners who forced Hillary to ignore thr rust belt states she lost. If she had just made a couple of campaign stops, she'd be president today. But she didn't. Oh, the Democrats in those states were screaming for help, but the idea was to stick it in their faces and win without paying any attention to their needs. After all, the working class are deplorable, remember? Speak truth to the powerless!
Yeah, exactly. The weird part is where everyone is suddenly on the side of a deplorable nobody from flyover territory. What the hell? When did we start sympathizing with racists having to pay cancellation fees?
It's sad how low art has fallen. I won't be surprised in the least if crappy computer-generated art can pass for real. After all, the real art that blights our culture is of such a low standard, it would be difficult to do worse. Our artists today are neither deep, original, nor articulate. One hopes they will be the next part of society replaced by automation. Let them learn to code.
Eh, it is though. The best commentators do it full time, and it shows in the quality of their work. Having your budget yanked for no reason is a real detriment. Imagine your favorite TV show having its budget yanked for no reason that anyone would tell them. Same effect.
Venal and corrupt? What are you, a socialist? Weird comment.
The federal government has smart people, much better than the morons at state government. The Feds have people who went to Harvard and Yale, and what do the states have? People who graduated with a bachelor's from State U? And you want to put these people in charge of real projects?
What'll happen is people who hate others speaking their minds will infest their comment sections and troll them, leaving inflammatory comments. This'll get them demonetized, which is about the same as being shut down. Appearing on Youtube is a full-time job if you do it right. It's not vapid internet celebrities either, there is some really incisive content by people like Jimmy Dore that is regularly reported and demonetized by these trolls.
Censorship isn't a school board banning Huckleberry Finn any more. In the corporatist system we have, corporate censorship isn't any different than government censorship. It doesn't make much difference whether the one silencing your dissent is Youtube or Andrew McCabe. The effect is the same.
Nobody on the Left cared about the old, discredited racist idea of States Rights until recently, when suddenly in a "We have always been allied with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia" moment, it became acceptable and desirable. Today, we have always been at war with Eurasia and States Rights is for the stupids.
So, is it right or wrong for states to make their own laws independent of the federal government? If it's not, then California needs to put the brakes on a ton of things they're doing right now. You'll also notice how the biased media reported it, by attacking him instead of reporting the real story of states rights. Now, you think he's stupid. That's what bias does in journalism, it has a real effect.
So, is it States Rights to stand up to federal laws you don't like, or is it complete idiocy and those wise people in the federal government know better? We have a state--California--engaging in rhetoric and action that would make John Calhoun's heart swell with pride for its open defiance of any federal policy that might limit the flood gates that are swamping the labor market. Heck, we had the governor of Oregon boast that she would try to start what is tantamount to a mutiny in the National Guard by ordering them to disobey a federal deployment order. And now that we've established the precedent that States Rights (a long discredited concept with an ugly racist past) are back again, we suddenly turn 180 degrees and think States Rights are for the stupids? How do you people do this without brain damage from all the cognitive dissonance?
It means the airline company will come up with a bullshit regulation that the aircraft isn't safe to fly until all the cameras have a clear view of the passengers. Lawyers love creating such things.
Until somebody comes by and tells you the aircraft is not safe to fly with your sticker on. Then you get arrested for disobeying aircrew instructions. Good plan there.
Slashdot Mirror
Then we should be celebrating as the polluting US bully is knocked off zir perch as unelected world police? And China and India, developing nations of color, deservedly take its place? I'm not seeing the problem here?
Troll
That's a slur, not an argument. Every time, it's never trying to refute the argument. Every time, it's the same old game of "I discredit the speaker, therefore your entire worldview is invalid!" At no point did you address the Left's war on free speech, nor the fascist tendencies that led to this war in the first place. All you do is try to discredit the speaker - me - instead of address the issues. You neither engaged with nor refuted Google's position that speech should be suppressed if Google doesn't agree with it.
Johnathan Haidt talks about you here, "they're trained carefully basically how to discredit your opponent. They learn to slur, they do not learn to argue."
Well, how does it feel to be on the same side with fascists? Who seeks oppression rather than freedom of speech? There's only ONE side doing that in politics today. When you suppress free speech with violence, you are not fighting fascism - you are the fascist!
How would the world be a worse place with a mass die-off of working class deplorables, deliberate or otherwise? The standard wisdom is that these people have outlived their welcome and need to be replaced by new immigrants.
Sounds like I hit a nerve with a Nazi sympathizer. Fuck off, Adolf.
It's a good thing we have freedom of speech to protect ourselves against fascists like you.
So are conspiracy theories a thing now? I thought they were the discredited rantings of idiots. But you've got one right there. Weird.
Hostility to Israel is commonly used by Nazis and other anti-Semites to disguise their ugly bigotry.
You may not be anti-Semitic. But you're OK with being on the same side as anti-Semites. No platform.
You don't win an argument by discrediting the speaker. You have to, you know, make arguments. In this case the Left was all for free speech - as long as it was THEIR speech that was being protected. Now that they're in power, they don't see why anyone should be able to speak but them. An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the "American tradition" of free speech on the internet is no longer viable. Pulling up the ladder so nobody else can get up.
It's not about that. It's about the American intelligence agencies NOT having backdoors into the equipment. That, and racism.
"Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone elseâ(TM)s academic freedom. (This is âoepolitical correctness.â) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control."
-- Ted Kazinsky, "The Unabomber Manifesto"
Yes, yes they are. Look at this interview with an NYT journalist and Joe Rogan. She is so full of herself and 100% convinced she is *right about everything*. She is used to being in an echo chamber and is badly affected by Rogan asking her questions about what she believes. She smears Tulsi Gabbard for being a Russian sycohpant, and then can't tell us what a sycophant is.
I love how she thinks Tulsi's stance on gay rights as an indoctrinated teenager, prior to her political career, is somehow pertinent, but Hillary's anti-gay and racist positions, in office, as a grown-ass politician, for most of her adult life, are somehow unfair to bring up.ï
The NYT journalist uses words without knowing what they mean, and she is in an influential position at the New York Times. This explains a lot.
The topic is the "blame the dirty foreigners" narrative, which is always bullshit. You can tell it's bullshit because people blame the foreigners for their own faults.
Still sticking with the "those dirty foreigners did this" narrative? Seriously? It wasn't foreigners who forced Hillary to ignore thr rust belt states she lost. If she had just made a couple of campaign stops, she'd be president today. But she didn't. Oh, the Democrats in those states were screaming for help, but the idea was to stick it in their faces and win without paying any attention to their needs. After all, the working class are deplorable, remember? Speak truth to the powerless!
Yeah, exactly. The weird part is where everyone is suddenly on the side of a deplorable nobody from flyover territory. What the hell? When did we start sympathizing with racists having to pay cancellation fees?
It's sad how low art has fallen. I won't be surprised in the least if crappy computer-generated art can pass for real. After all, the real art that blights our culture is of such a low standard, it would be difficult to do worse. Our artists today are neither deep, original, nor articulate. One hopes they will be the next part of society replaced by automation. Let them learn to code.
Eh, it is though. The best commentators do it full time, and it shows in the quality of their work. Having your budget yanked for no reason is a real detriment. Imagine your favorite TV show having its budget yanked for no reason that anyone would tell them. Same effect.
Venal and corrupt? What are you, a socialist? Weird comment.
Because harming the interests of workers is how we keep the deplorables in line. You're not on their side, are you?
The federal government has smart people, much better than the morons at state government. The Feds have people who went to Harvard and Yale, and what do the states have? People who graduated with a bachelor's from State U? And you want to put these people in charge of real projects?
What'll happen is people who hate others speaking their minds will infest their comment sections and troll them, leaving inflammatory comments. This'll get them demonetized, which is about the same as being shut down. Appearing on Youtube is a full-time job if you do it right. It's not vapid internet celebrities either, there is some really incisive content by people like Jimmy Dore that is regularly reported and demonetized by these trolls.
Censorship isn't a school board banning Huckleberry Finn any more. In the corporatist system we have, corporate censorship isn't any different than government censorship. It doesn't make much difference whether the one silencing your dissent is Youtube or Andrew McCabe. The effect is the same.
Nobody on the Left cared about the old, discredited racist idea of States Rights until recently, when suddenly in a "We have always been allied with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia" moment, it became acceptable and desirable. Today, we have always been at war with Eurasia and States Rights is for the stupids.
So, is it right or wrong for states to make their own laws independent of the federal government? If it's not, then California needs to put the brakes on a ton of things they're doing right now. You'll also notice how the biased media reported it, by attacking him instead of reporting the real story of states rights. Now, you think he's stupid. That's what bias does in journalism, it has a real effect.
So, is it States Rights to stand up to federal laws you don't like, or is it complete idiocy and those wise people in the federal government know better? We have a state--California--engaging in rhetoric and action that would make John Calhoun's heart swell with pride for its open defiance of any federal policy that might limit the flood gates that are swamping the labor market. Heck, we had the governor of Oregon boast that she would try to start what is tantamount to a mutiny in the National Guard by ordering them to disobey a federal deployment order. And now that we've established the precedent that States Rights (a long discredited concept with an ugly racist past) are back again, we suddenly turn 180 degrees and think States Rights are for the stupids? How do you people do this without brain damage from all the cognitive dissonance?
It means the airline company will come up with a bullshit regulation that the aircraft isn't safe to fly until all the cameras have a clear view of the passengers. Lawyers love creating such things.
Until somebody comes by and tells you the aircraft is not safe to fly with your sticker on. Then you get arrested for disobeying aircrew instructions. Good plan there.