The (destruction of) CNN thread

doc holliday

Pelican
Gold Member
Suits, can you explain a bit more what you mean that you lean left because you want to create solutions instead of living in the past? I don't really understand how leftism does any of this, especially the modern iteration of it. Serious question, just wanting to discuss.

As for modern day Republicans being an embarassment, at this point most politicians from both parties should hardly be considered points of pride and the Democrats have completely lost their minds over Trump at this point. TDS is a very real mental disorder amongst leftists today.

I'd like to believe that many leftists are not happy with the level of bias the media is displaying against Trump but given how many are reacting positively to the banning of Alex Jones by all the tech oligarchies, I can't really accept that there are very many sane leftists left. Curious as to your thoughts of this, good to hear different viewpoints even if I don't agree with them so much.
 

Suits

 
doc holliday said:
Suits, can you explain a bit more what you mean that you lean left because you want to create solutions instead of living in the past? I don't really understand how leftism does any of this, especially the modern iteration of it. Serious question, just wanting to discuss.
I'm a big supporter of the following things:

  • High tech solutions to energy needs. I value government grants for emerging technologies, such as solar energy acquisition, as I believe that without a means of funding research and development, the technology can't progress.
  • Universal health care -- I don't believe that it's good for a nation to have the health care resources monopolized by the wealthy, leaving only scraps behind for the middle and lower classes. Universal health care, where everyone has access to exactly the same standard of service and care is great for small business. My parents started a small business from scratch and are now job creators (for themselves and others). They never could have done this if Canada didn't offer universal health care.

I am moderately OK with the following:

  • High taxes. Provided there is good value produced, I don't mind paying a lot.
  • Tax supported public education -- This is something that in certain areas of the US and Canada could use a serious overhaul, especially places where stats are far more important than genuine results. But in principle, I support a system of both public and private educational choices. I wouldn't necessarily be against a voucher system.
  • Gun control -- I won't argue about US gun control because it's firmly planted in the constitution, but I think that most right-wing arguments on the topic are intellectually embarassing, as they ignore the many global examples where gun control is highly effective.
  • From a rights perspective, I support the right to abortion. I also think it's disgusting that what amounts to a legal loophole that gives women the right to murder their unborn child would be used to often.
  • Limits on car us in dense populated areas. Guys who build a big portion of their personal identity around their tough pick-up truck they desperately need to drive every day can cry themselves to sleep each night for all I care.
  • I'd go so far as to suggest banning cars from many areas of modern cities, provided that a suitable and superior transportation substitute could be provided in it's place.


doc holliday said:
As for modern day Republicans being an embarassment, at this point most politicians from both parties should hardly be considered points of pride and the Democrats have completely lost their minds over Trump at this point.
Agreed.

doc holliday said:
I'd like to believe that many leftists are not happy with the level of bias the media is displaying against Trump but given how many are reacting positively to the banning of Alex Jones by all the tech oligarchies.
I'm glad Alex Jones was banned from multiple platforms. The man is a rightwing shrill and has no integrity. The world would be better off with his form of "journalism."

Not that I can say many better things about other media at this point, but Alex Jones actually makes the mainstream media look good by comparison. He's an embarrassment.
 

Malone

Pelican
Gold Member
So you're a anti free speech socialist that also likes big government. You've made a good choice of country to live in.
 

Suits

 
Malone said:
So you're a anti free speech socialist that also likes big government. You've made a good choice of country to live in.
I'm not anti-free speech. Free speech is a fundamental cornerstone of a civilized society.

Stop making baseless accusation.
 

Barron

Ostrich
Gold Member
Suits said:
I'm glad Alex Jones was banned from multiple platforms. The man is a rightwing shrill and has no integrity. The world would be better off with his form of "journalism."
Stifling someone's ability to speak, regardless of what you think of them, is anti first amendment.

Suits said:
Not that I can say many better things about other media at this point, but Alex Jones actually makes the mainstream media look good by comparison. He's an embarrassment.
If he's so ridiculous then the MSM shot themselves in the foot by banning him, so why did they do it?

How would you like it if Roosh banned your account because he thinks you're an "embarrassment"?
You can say how much you wouldn't give a shit because you have better things to do, but in reality you'd be pissed and believe that Roosh is no better than a radical authoritarian.
 

Suits

 
NomadofEU said:
Suits said:
I'm glad Alex Jones was banned from multiple platforms. The man is a rightwing shrill and has no integrity. The world would be better off with his form of "journalism."
Stifling someone's ability to speak, regardless of what you think of them, is anti first amendment.
Do I really need to explain the difference between the government stifling free speech and private corporation deciding what material they will permitted on the platforms they own?

If a law is signed into being that make Twitter and YouTube public utilities, then that's a different story, but as it currently stands, Alex Jones is perfectly entitled to say just about anything he wants on his own platform.

I'm against
  • Forcing people to produce wedding cakes related to lifestyles they don't wish to endorse.
  • Criminalizing Nazi beliefs, despite how appaling people who have those beliefs are.
  • Allowing ISP's to refuse service to anyone who is not committing a crime.
  • Prevent people to make statements from a soapbox on any government property.

Now, explain to me how I am anti-free speech.

NomadofEU said:
Suits said:
Not that I can say many better things about other media at this point, but Alex Jones actually makes the mainstream media look good by comparison. He's an embarrassment.
If he's so ridiculous then the MSM shot themselves in the foot by banning him, so why did they do it?
You'd have to ask the people who banned him from their platforms this question. I'm not privy to their decision making processes.

NomadofEU said:
How would you like it if Roosh banned your account because he thinks you're an "embarrassment"?
Roosh is entitled to run this forum any way he wishes to. My ability to post here is a privilege, not a right.

It's his platform and therefore he can decide who can participate and more importantly, who can't.
 

Barron

Ostrich
Gold Member
Of course he can.
Social media corporations deny banning/censoring people because of political bias, yet their censorship of users with conservative/pro-trump views is undeniable.

It's intellectual dishonesty to conflate someone being an embarrassment with justification for banning them.

Just say you're banning them because you don't like them. Stop lying by telling everyone that they're "dangerous" or "inciting violence".

But they're not doing that. They're character assassinating anyone that voices contrary views under the intentionally vague guise of "violation of community guidelines". None of which holds up when applied to the favor they show for Antifa or BLM groups.

You can't have it both ways.
 
I don’t agree with your politics Suits but I believe in your right to think how you want. I’m more or less the polar opposite to you on most issues but that doesn’t stop us having civilized conversations.

One of the issues with politics in general is how polarized it is becoming. You can’t state an opinion without someone jumping down your throat telling you that what you are thinking is ‘wrong’. Wrong to you maybe but if Suits wants to be more socialist than you then so be it.

Ps. Suits, Everyone’s a socialist when they’re young ;). (Except me - I’ve always been right field)
 

Suits

 
NomadofEU said:
Of course he can.
Social media corporations deny banning/censoring people because of political bias, yet their censorship of users with conservative/pro-trump views is undeniable.
So?

NomadofEU said:
It's intellectual dishonesty to conflate someone being an embarrassment with justification for banning them.
It doesn't justify banning them.
It does justify being grateful about their being banned.

NomadofEU said:
Just say you're banning them because you don't like them. Stop lying by telling everyone that they're "dangerous" or "inciting violence".
When you become a member of the c-suite management team at a large media company, you are free to use this advice.

NomadofEU said:
But they're not doing that. They're character assassinating anyone that voices contrary views under the intentionally vague guise of "violation of community guidelines". None of which holds up when applied to the favor they show for Antifa or BLM groups.
So?

It's a private platform, not a public space. The individuals offended by this are more than welcome to file a lawsuit.

The Supreme Court has ruled on similar cases before.

NomadofEU said:
You can't have it both ways.
Actually, when you're not a government entity, then yes, yes you can.
 

Barron

Ostrich
Gold Member
Suits said:
NomadofEU said:
You can't have it both ways.
Actually, when you're not a government entity, then yes, yes you can.
If that were true then companies couldn't be sued for racist, sexist, rape-enabling, hostile working environment accusations of discrimination. But they are, aren't they?

Companies are sued and men's lives are ruined for far less every day.

So actually you're right - you can't have it both ways. But they can.
 
Suits, I actually find your positions very reasonable and I'm with you on cars and health care.

I'll go so far as to say that on issues that really matter, like health care, food prices, increased wages, Trump is totally ineffective. And I don't blame him because hes actually an oligarch pretending to be a common man. He gets people on the right excited because he's good at trolling the left and threatening defenseless brown countries.

That's why I think it's important to not place your faith in frauds like Trump and just do your own thing, control the things that you can control. Focus on making decent coin, lift, read book etc.
 

doc holliday

Pelican
Gold Member
Suits, thanks for the response. I'll respond in greater detail later but I will disagree with you about Alex Jones. While it's technically true that Facebook etc are not public utilities by law yet, they are essentially public utilitiies, platforms by which a large majority of the population communicate over and as such I believe these companies have a responsibility to ensure that free speech is protected. In fact these companies proudly proclaim that they are the guardians of free speech while controlling speech that they don't like. It's a very dangerous path that they are going down and a these tech companies are bringing us to a dystopia where only left wing speech and thought is allowed. Very scary. They absolutely had no business shutting down Alex Jones, even if they currently have the legal right to do so.
 

Suits

 
NomadofEU said:
Suits said:
NomadofEU said:
You can't have it both ways.
Actually, when you're not a government entity, then yes, yes you can.
If that were true then companies couldn't be sued for racist, sexist, rape-enabling, hostile working environment accusations of discrimination. But they are, aren't they?

Companies are sued and men's lives are ruined for far less every day.

So actually you're right - you can't have it both ways. But they can.
Clearly you don't understand the difference between legislation and case law that currently exists and legislation and case law that you would like to exist.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
doc holliday said:
Suits, thanks for the response. I'll respond in greater detail later but I will disagree with you about Alex Jones. While it's technically true that Facebook etc are not public utilities by law yet, they are essentially public utilitiies, platforms by which a large majority of the population communicate over and as such I believe these companies have a responsibility to ensure that free speech is protected. In fact these companies proudly proclaim that they are the guardians of free speech while controlling speech that they don't like. It's a very dangerous path that they are going down and a these tech companies are bringing us to a dystopia where only left wing speech and thought is allowed. Very scary. They absolutely had no business shutting down Alex Jones, even if they currently have the legal right to do so.
The central mistake in this set of assumptions is that the solution to nigh-on monopoly corporate control is to have government come in and "manage" or "regulate" the problem for you. Didn't work ahead of subprime, didn't work after it either. The regulations, in fact, made the problem worse.

Months ago I pointed out Peggy Noonan from Ronald Reagan's era was playing this same Jedi Mind Trick on the readers of the Wall Street Journal: she decries the modern generation because it won't pull its pants up (despite the fact her generation let said moderns drop their pants), and screams at people that Mark Zuckerberg's digital stalking platform should be regulated by government. She then performs a classic one-two punch:
(1) Congress is stupid; but
(2) The only Adults are there.

Nowhere in that analysis does she suggest the rather more obvious thing which requires zero government intervention or regulation to carry out, which is:
(1) Listen, 200 million Americans horrified at the prospect of Zuckerberg being in your n00ds, if you don't like what Facebook does, turn the fucking thing off and delete the entire platform.

And let me underline it again: if you think the prospect of the Zuck being up in your history is bad, imagine the prospect of the government overtly, legally having a justification to do so. "For maintenance of the public utilities in this space."

Alex Jones put himself in this position. Repeatedly, despite apparently knowing Teh Enemy (brackets optional) was onto him and planned to shut him down. If even half the tinfoil he supported on his network was correct, he was in a better position than anyone else to be aware the plug could be pulled at any moment. Most reasonable people, when they see a hurricane coming, start moving their paintings out of the path of the hurricane. Julian Assange had Wikileaks set up to continue operations even when he was under effective house arrest for years, and had those contingency plans in place before the Five Eyes came after him.

What did Alex Jones do? What measures did he take? What alternative platforms is he promoting, or setting up, or commercialising, or doing anything with? Is he on hooktube? Vimeo? Dailymotion? Fuck me, Veoh? Anywhere?

And for God's sake, don't keep calling these services public utilities. That gives the government even more reason to come in and start regulating them. Government intervention is always a "just the tip" prospect: it starts with naive interventionism, and it ends with the outright destruction of the platform ... oh. Wait. Yeah, maybe the government should come in and regulate YouTube, because that will sign the platform's death warrant.
 

doc holliday

Pelican
Gold Member
Look I think anyone who depends on the honesty of tech companies to earn a living is in a precarious spot. Remember that Persian chick who shot up YouTube headquarters a while back? Sh snapped because you tube fucked her business up. It's long past due for Conservatives to have their own platforms. Our forum here is a great example of such. Be this as it may, it is still a very dangerous precedent that is being set by big tech. Tech is 100% in bed with the government seeing how they turn over all the data they collect to the NSA. What should occur is that anti-trust laws need to apply and these big tech companies need to be broken up. They basically have monopolies on communication which is creating this problem. This is what makes them de facto utilities and having more avenues of communication would be better.

For example, I wish I had more choice in cell phone platforms than Apple and Google Android. I despise these two companies yet I have no other choices. I have more choice of cell phone carriers which are actual utilities than I have with the cell phones themselves. I agree that increased government regulation and interference is unwanted which will be the crux of my argument when I get a chance to respond to some of Suits' other points. As for Alex Jones, he'll be fine but it's the attack of conservative thought in general by tech which I find terribly disturbing.
 

glugger

Woodpecker
The argument I've seen about private corporations is that they are not liable for the content produced by their users on their platforms, because of free speech among other reasons, and therefore are not required to police it.

However, if you start picking and choosing what is displayed on your platform, you can no longer claim that you aren't legally responsible for the content on it.

I think that's why people start to conflate facebook, twitter etc as utilities - because they have different rules than other private companies.

Here's a balanced article that discusses this in more depth: https://medium.com/the-jist/should-...ms-police-content-on-their-sites-b20418797640
 
Suits said:
NomadofEU said:
Suits said:
I'm glad Alex Jones was banned from multiple platforms. The man is a rightwing shrill and has no integrity. The world would be better off with his form of "journalism."
Stifling someone's ability to speak, regardless of what you think of them, is anti first amendment.
Do I really need to explain the difference between the government stifling free speech and private corporation deciding what material they will permitted on the platforms they own?

If a law is signed into being that make Twitter and YouTube public utilities, then that's a different story, but as it currently stands, Alex Jones is perfectly entitled to say just about anything he wants on his own platform.

I'm against
  • Forcing people to produce wedding cakes related to lifestyles they don't wish to endorse.
  • Criminalizing Nazi beliefs, despite how appaling people who have those beliefs are.
  • Allowing ISP's to refuse service to anyone who is not committing a crime.
  • Prevent people to make statements from a soapbox on any government property.

Now, explain to me how I am anti-free speech.

NomadofEU said:
Suits said:
Not that I can say many better things about other media at this point, but Alex Jones actually makes the mainstream media look good by comparison. He's an embarrassment.
If he's so ridiculous then the MSM shot themselves in the foot by banning him, so why did they do it?
You'd have to ask the people who banned him from their platforms this question. I'm not privy to their decision making processes.

NomadofEU said:
How would you like it if Roosh banned your account because he thinks you're an "embarrassment"?
Roosh is entitled to run this forum any way he wishes to. My ability to post here is a privilege, not a right.

It's his platform and therefore he can decide who can participate and more importantly, who can't.
Suits, there is a huge difference between Facebook deciding to ban Alex Jones, and 5 different social networks working together, to blackmail all right wing websites. Not only block their websites, but deny them banking accounts and credit card services. This is conspiracy on a massive scale. This is extraordinarily damaging to society and to democracy. The is something that will cause Congress to pass widespread legislation that would take over and regulate social media companies on a massive scale, and punish the companies who conspired together.

Conspiracy is a crime. It doesn't matter if Alex Jones is good or bad or if your cause is right or wrong. If Facebook and Youtube officials conspire secretly to blacklist people, you need to go to fucking jail. That is criminal activity.

If the left wing of this country is so out of control that they are willing to engage is criminal conspiracies, then they are going to fuck themselves over.

Yes, they can deny it's criminal. They can claim to be innocent. That won't mean shit when Trump has a congressional majority that passes pass laws making this illegal, and retroactively prosecute the CEOs of Facebook and Google. They will doing the perp walk, crying innocence all the way to their jail cell.
 
Suits said:
doc holliday said:
Suits, can you explain a bit more what you mean that you lean left because you want to create solutions instead of living in the past? I don't really understand how leftism does any of this, especially the modern iteration of it. Serious question, just wanting to discuss.
I'm a big supporter of the following things:

  • High tech solutions to energy needs. I value government grants for emerging technologies, such as solar energy acquisition, as I believe that without a means of funding research and development, the technology can't progress.
  • Universal health care -- I don't believe that it's good for a nation to have the health care resources monopolized by the wealthy, leaving only scraps behind for the middle and lower classes. Universal health care, where everyone has access to exactly the same standard of service and care is great for small business. My parents started a small business from scratch and are now job creators (for themselves and others). They never could have done this if Canada didn't offer universal health care.

I am moderately OK with the following:

  • High taxes. Provided there is good value produced, I don't mind paying a lot.
  • Tax supported public education -- This is something that in certain areas of the US and Canada could use a serious overhaul, especially places where stats are far more important than genuine results. But in principle, I support a system of both public and private educational choices. I wouldn't necessarily be against a voucher system.
  • Gun control -- I won't argue about US gun control because it's firmly planted in the constitution, but I think that most right-wing arguments on the topic are intellectually embarassing, as they ignore the many global examples where gun control is highly effective.
  • From a rights perspective, I support the right to abortion. I also think it's disgusting that what amounts to a legal loophole that gives women the right to murder their unborn child would be used to often.
  • Limits on car us in dense populated areas. Guys who build a big portion of their personal identity around their tough pick-up truck they desperately need to drive every day can cry themselves to sleep each night for all I care.
  • I'd go so far as to suggest banning cars from many areas of modern cities, provided that a suitable and superior transportation substitute could be provided in it's place.


doc holliday said:
As for modern day Republicans being an embarassment, at this point most politicians from both parties should hardly be considered points of pride and the Democrats have completely lost their minds over Trump at this point.
Agreed.

doc holliday said:
I'd like to believe that many leftists are not happy with the level of bias the media is displaying against Trump but given how many are reacting positively to the banning of Alex Jones by all the tech oligarchies.
I'm glad Alex Jones was banned from multiple platforms. The man is a rightwing shrill and has no integrity. The world would be better off with his form of "journalism."

Not that I can say many better things about other media at this point, but Alex Jones actually makes the mainstream media look good by comparison. He's an embarrassment.

Ah yes, universal healthcare. The one which gives you access, but not necessarily timely care. But, as a politician, you'd want to latch onto it for dear life as it'll get you elected.
 
Top