Page 10 of 11 [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

13 Jan 2021, 3:32 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
You said producing those things would most certainly involve law breaking, I was pointing out that you were incorrect about that and gave examples. What exactly to CP and snuff films have to do with terrorist/extremist groups operating on social media? Speaking of retreating into strange territory to defend terrible things.

If you need to shift the goal posts that far in order to defend terrorist groups like QAnon or the various alt-right groups operating on social media you should just concede you're wrong.


In order to spray paint a building you don't own to create "art," you must first open up the can of spray paint and start vandalizing before your artwork is ever completed. You're breaking the law by your action. In order to photograph/record the actual rape of a child or murder of a person, you must actually commit a very vile and illegal action first.

The examples you gave don't actually do those things, and the links provided by GGPViper contradict what you said. Again: What country are you from??

I went back to actual CP and actual snuff (and even graffiti of property you don't own) because Jiheisho keeps lumping those actions in with speech. He says since they're illegal, speech must be regulated. But those things aren't speech.

I have nothing to concede I'm wrong about. I remember how terrified you were to give a fictitious ISIS example. You've failed to properly define what a terrorist group could even be in the first place, and that's what worries me. As I've said, it's a broad-brush with you.

But again, I don't know what the laws are like in your country. I can't fault you entirely for not understanding these principles.


I'm from Canada, where the examples I gave most certainly are illegal.

I wasn't terrified to give an example of recruiting, I wasn't interested in playing along with your inability to understand that the term has a broad definition when your goal is distraction.

I've made a point of spending less time arguing with idiots and so, I will yet again be withdrawing but I might check in to watch you embarrass yourself further.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

13 Jan 2021, 3:37 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
On the issue of defining when something is discrimination versus when it is a legitimate choice - better people than me have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue and it cannot possibly be summarised here.

TRANSLATION: What constitutes discrimination is rather arbitrary, and you yourself can't properly define it.

Translation: it’s extremely hard to provide completely watertight definitions of words which are not tautologous, and I’m not going to pretend that the world is simple. But the old “I know it when I see it” applies.

Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Google, Facebook, and Twitter are not monopolies in their core businesses. Facebook and Twitter are direct competitors...

Facebook and Twitter aren't in direct competition by any means, as they actually serve two different purposes. Furthermore, they work in tandem with one another, and both are promoted and favored by the corporate giant that they're in bed with, which is Google. Google has the ability to promote the companies it does business with and effectively squeeze out and suppress competitors to Google's favored partners (Facebook, Twitter).

Google has made multiple attempts to compete with these services, most notably Google Plus. I don’t buy your narrative.
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Google is far from the only search engine in town. Users can just as easily use Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc. YouTube is a much more dominant player in its field...

Google is more than just a search engine at this point. YouTube, the most popular video sharing platform, is now OWNED by Google. Are you starting to catch on?

Given that I even raised that in my post, what is your point?
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
As I have said elsewhere, while the mobile OS game is not a monopoly, that is one area where I can see the case for antitrust action. ...

I had mentioned that several pages before you even joined this thread, and reiterated it again. Yes, Android phones are effectively Google phones. They make it rather difficult and inconvenient to use non-Google apps and services or any other services not favored/sanctioned by Google. Google is even removing competitors to its favored business partners on Android phones. Is this becoming clearer?

Bluntly, no - you seem to be conflating very different issues. The water company having a monopoly doesn’t magically mean that your local supermarket also has a monopoly.

The_Walrus wrote:
But without getting into the weeds, let’s look at the specifics of Trump’s time of Twitter.
As I stated in my OP, the "weeds" are the very point of this thread, not the cult of Trump or the cult of anti-Trump. But since everyone here seems to get a hard-on for Trump, all right, let's talk Trump:[/quote]
You made a thread about Facebook and Twitter kicking people off their sites for trying to overthrow a democratic government. Of course people are going to raise the fact that they tried to overthrow a democratic government.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

13 Jan 2021, 10:38 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
@Jiheisho:

In order to make and distributed actual child pornography or snuff films, you have to break some very serious laws to begin with in order to make them. Likewise, if I spray paint graffiti on a building I don't own, I'm very much breaking the law.


Yes, and we are back to the point. You are saying a building owner cannot be compelled to publish free speech.

Your law argument is a red herring. What makes child pornography illegal? Until you answer that, simply saying it is illegal (not all adult pornography is legal) is not meaningful. For example, written child porn can be done with just words. There is no real child involved. Don't you believe in people thinking for themselves? Do you believe in the marketplace of ideas? Then what is the problem of child porn?

Quote:
So, in those instances, it's not about "speech," but rather the illegality of the acts required to do those things.


Not sure your point. Speech is an act. If you saying an act that causes harm can be made illegal, then speech that can cause harm can be made illegal. So what is the threshold for speech to become illegal?

Quote:
Please be more specific with fraud. Eventually, fraud requires some sort of action to take place before it constitutes actual fraud.


So if I attempt fraud by lying but no one buys into it, then that is OK? So if speech does not lead to action, then there is no limit. I can use language to incite violence, but if no one crosses the line, it is perfectly fine?

But if speech leads to action, the speech is not to blame? I am not sure of your position. Again, where does speech reach the point where it becomes harmful?

Quote:
I don't believe in silencing opinions in the pretext of safety. "Inciting violence" is a broad term. Perpetrators of violence are guilty of illegal actions. "The devil told me to do it," doesn't work. If I told you to jump off a bridge, I'm not literally throwing you off.


Exactly, speech is very complex. Some are going to be figures of speech. Some is more serious.

Quote:
You're argument is people are too stupid to think for themselves, so no one should be allowed to speak their mind because some might put it to action. And I suppose you get to decide what speech you don't like?


Do you think the election was rigged and did you participate in the insurrection against the Capitol to "take your country back"? All of that was promoted though speech. Do you really thing people were thinking? There is a mountain of scientific literature showing people are not rational creatures. We fall for confirmation bias and groupthink all the time, for example.

There is no need to lash out at me. But as a society, we have decided there are limits to speech. Child pornography and fraud are two examples. Those decision came from long discussions until our legislature was convinced to enact laws against them.

Quote:
I think Holocaust denial is silly, but those are indeed WORDS, and I support people's right to discuss whatever weird nonsense they want. I don't think they should be forcefully silenced.


Who is forcefully silencing anyone?

You think ideas are silly. The book Protocols of the Elders of Zion was used to incite people against the Jews. Words were used to say that the Jews had a conspiracy to control the world. I think we know what happened when people started believing in that nonsense. Holocaust denial is just a continuation of that speech and still used to support antisemitism.

Quote:
What do the violent and illegal actions of running people over and burning down churches have to do with this conversation?


Protests are speech. You can argue that burning down a church is speech.

So, where is the line where speech become illegal? Even if you point to laws, that line was drawn somehow?

How can you can compel an organization to support someone else's speech? Lets take WP. Can they ban you from the forum and for what justification? You could argue for the autistic community that WP is a major outlet for speech on the internet for those with ASD--the Facebook of autism, so to speak.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,936
Location: New Jersey, USA

13 Jan 2021, 11:55 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Yes, and we are back to the point. You are saying a building owner cannot be compelled to publish free speech.

Correct. However, when only a small group of people own every building in town including the town square, and it's impossible for others to even buy property in town, there's clearly a problem. The city of cyberspace is experiencing this now. And the whole point of cyberspace is, in essence, communication. So, we're seeing communication being controlled by a select few.

Jiheisho wrote:
What makes child pornography illegal?

The act of physically raping a child to produce it.

Jiheisho wrote:
For example, written child porn can be done with just words. There is no real child involved. Don't you believe in people thinking for themselves?

Of course people can think for themselves. Writing out your deepest darkest fantasies, however appalling to others, is not illegal and is a protected form of free speech.

Jiheisho wrote:
Not sure your point. Speech is an act. If you saying an act that causes harm can be made illegal, then speech that can cause harm can be made illegal. So what is the threshold for speech to become illegal?

The act that causes harm IS illegal. The words themselves are not.

Jiheisho wrote:
So if I attempt fraud by lying but no one buys into it, then that is OK?

Well, if no one actually wires money to the "Nigerian prince," and the would-be fraudsters don't actually collect any money, then no, they actually haven't broken the law. Haven't you received all kinds of junk mail in your real-world mailbox (Publishers Clearing House or what have you)? It's not illegal.

Jiheisho wrote:
You think ideas are silly. The book Protocols of the Elders of Zion was used to incite people against the Jews. Words were used to say that the Jews had a conspiracy to control the world. I think we know what happened when people started believing in that nonsense.

You realize that (under American law at least) Protocols of the Elders of Zion is perfectly legal to publish and read? As it should be. That's the whole point of free speech, not to pick-and-choose what some like and some don't. I don't think you get it.

Jiheisho wrote:
Protests are speech. You can argue that burning down a church is speech.

So, where is the line where speech become illegal?

You can argue burning a bra or burning a flag that you own is speech. Destroying someone else's property that you don't own isn't speech. I never made that argument, and you're redefining speech to try and fit your narrative.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

14 Jan 2021, 12:08 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Yes, and we are back to the point. You are saying a building owner cannot be compelled to publish free speech.

Correct. However, when only a small group of people own every building in town including the town square, and it's impossible for others to even buy property in town, there's clearly a problem. The city of cyberspace is experiencing this now. And the whole point of cyberspace is, in essence, communication. So, we're seeing communication being controlled by a select few.


What you are discussing is close to "Marsh v. Alabama".

From a summary of that case:
Quote:
The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.

The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.


It would be interesting to see what would happen if this case were used as a form of precedent were someone to challenge their accounts being disabled on a dominant social media site (de-facto "public square") because they made statements the site owner disagreed with but which were not illegal.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,936
Location: New Jersey, USA

14 Jan 2021, 12:14 am

Jiheisho wrote:
How can you can compel an organization to support someone else's speech? Lets take WP. Can they ban you from the forum and for what justification? You could argue for the autistic community that WP is a major outlet for speech on the internet for those with ASD--the Facebook of autism, so to speak.


The US government ruled that Trump couldn't block dissenters on his Twitter account, and Twitter itself must oblige and un-ban them. So a precedent of government involvement in tools of mass communication has already been set.

More importantly, the argument of "If you don't like it, go start your own site," no longer seems to apply, as the Tech Giants control the nuts-and-bolts of web hosting. So, the power is in the hands of a few, these "private" organizations have cornered a market on communication. When no one else even has the ability to compete, yes, you have a monopoly/oligarchy over content by these "organizations."

Organizations aren't people and are indeed subject to regulations. WP itself is too small and insignificant to really matter. But when major platforms (relied on by the media, no less) hold full control over these methods of communication, it's time for a change. And that is the responsibility of the federal government.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

14 Jan 2021, 12:16 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Yes, and we are back to the point. You are saying a building owner cannot be compelled to publish free speech.

Correct. However, when only a small group of people own every building in town including the town square, and it's impossible for others to even buy property in town, there's clearly a problem. The city of cyberspace is experiencing this now. And the whole point of cyberspace is, in essence, communication. So, we're seeing communication being controlled by a select few.

Jiheisho wrote:
What makes child pornography illegal?

The act of physically raping a child to produce it.

Jiheisho wrote:
For example, written child porn can be done with just words. There is no real child involved. Don't you believe in people thinking for themselves?

Of course people can think for themselves. Writing out your deepest darkest fantasies, however appalling to others, is not illegal and is a protected form of free speech.

Jiheisho wrote:
Not sure your point. Speech is an act. If you saying an act that causes harm can be made illegal, then speech that can cause harm can be made illegal. So what is the threshold for speech to become illegal?

The act that causes harm IS illegal. The words themselves are not.

Jiheisho wrote:
So if I attempt fraud by lying but no one buys into it, then that is OK?

Well, if no one actually wires money to the "Nigerian prince," and the would-be fraudsters don't actually collect any money, then no, they actually haven't broken the law. Haven't you received all kinds of junk mail in your real-world mailbox (Publishers Clearing House or what have you)? It's not illegal.

Jiheisho wrote:
You think ideas are silly. The book Protocols of the Elders of Zion was used to incite people against the Jews. Words were used to say that the Jews had a conspiracy to control the world. I think we know what happened when people started believing in that nonsense.

You realize that (under American law at least) Protocols of the Elders of Zion is perfectly legal to publish and read? As it should be. That's the whole point of free speech, not to pick-and-choose what some like and some don't. I don't think you get it.

Jiheisho wrote:
Protests are speech. You can argue that burning down a church is speech.

So, where is the line where speech become illegal?

You can argue burning a bra or burning a flag that you own is speech. Destroying someone else's property that you don't own isn't speech. I never made that argument, and you're redefining speech to try and fit your narrative.


I don't have a narrative. I am just actually trying to determine how much you know about free speech and the first amendment. You are obviously missing my points. I just can't tell if you just don't understand them or don't want to think about them, but I am getting a little tired of your swipes at me.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

14 Jan 2021, 1:20 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
The US government ruled that Trump couldn't block dissenters on his Twitter account, and Twitter itself must oblige and un-ban them. So a precedent of government involvement in tools of mass communication has already been set.


That was because he was using it as his default way to make announcements, right? Does that prevent Twitter from stopping him from using the site as a default way to make announcements? Especially as befitting of another analogy Trump had been doing graffiti on their property.

Regardless of analogies, it is a bit gross that for some people to express necessary speech they need to be allowed to incite violence and spread provable lies that creates disinformation that could very likely get people hurt.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

14 Jan 2021, 10:42 am

Bradleigh wrote:
ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
The US government ruled that Trump couldn't block dissenters on his Twitter account, and Twitter itself must oblige and un-ban them. So a precedent of government involvement in tools of mass communication has already been set.


That was because he was using it as his default way to make announcements, right? Does that prevent Twitter from stopping him from using the site as a default way to make announcements? Especially as befitting of another analogy Trump had been doing graffiti on their property.

Regardless of analogies, it is a bit gross that for some people to express necessary speech they need to be allowed to incite violence and spread provable lies that creates disinformation that could very likely get people hurt.


Basically, Trump is a government official and he is doing the work of that office. The 1st amendment prevents the government from censoring speech, so it was ruled that Trump can't selectively ban anyone from his account.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,810
Location: New York City (Queens)

14 Jan 2021, 3:22 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
More importantly, the argument of "If you don't like it, go start your own site," no longer seems to apply, as the Tech Giants control the nuts-and-bolts of web hosting.

Not completely. There are still plenty of other, smaller web hosting services, and no reason not to use them except that you might have to pay a little more.

On the other hand, there are a lot of problems with large-scale social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. I'd like to see them get broken up somehow, not sure how.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,810
Location: New York City (Queens)

14 Jan 2021, 5:53 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
I'm from Canada, where the examples I gave most certainly are illegal.

Various kinds of speech/literature/images are legal under U.S. law but not under Canadian law.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,936
Location: New Jersey, USA

15 Jan 2021, 2:00 am

Jiheisho wrote:
Basically, Trump is a government official and he is doing the work of that office. The 1st amendment prevents the government from censoring speech, so it was ruled that Trump can't selectively ban anyone from his account.

Have you ever actually read the First Amendment? It's clearly been interpreted differently by different courts, but it doesn't actually say what you claim:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Trump isn't Congress, and Congress didn't pass a law restricting anyone's speech on Twitter (nor any politician).

So, now we're into new territory. You seem to favor a hybrid model. You're acknowledging that the "private" company of Twitter is indeed a tool of mass communication used by people in power to do government work (hence why the courts got involved). But you're saying it's still a private company. So, the politicians who use it can't pick-and-chose who gets to to respond, but Twitter itself can decide which politicians can/can't use the platform. Again, yours in a hybrid-model which implies that Twitter has corporate personhood and the "right" to pick-and-choose who uses it. But Twitter can't respect the rights of its users to silence people if those users are politicians, hence it's subject to government regulation as an institution (and is clearly an important tool in regards to PUBLIC policy). Moreover, it's the dominant platform in its corner of the market. Which brings us back to trustbusting and government regulation of monopolies.

If this "private" company is powerful enough that the government can get involved in saying who can and can't ban whom in this "private" forum, then it's grown beyond some hole-in-the-wall nothing website, and has indeed become a megacorporation. So, Twitter is "public" enough that it can't allow politicians from blocking dissenters, but "private" enough to pick-and-choose who has access?

Now, in this dangerous precedent we're setting, a "private" forum can be used to control any and all content by public officials. A great work-around, don't you think? Suppose, in an alternate reality, Twitter really LOVED Trump. Could they have said, "We are a private company, so we, the company, have decided to block Trump's dissenters on our own behalf?"

It's as if Congress hasn't outlawed unpopular press, but ONE "private" mega conglomerate has now bought up and controls every major newspaper. Legally, you have the right to start your own paper. In reality, a "private" company controls all content, and its distributors (i.e. Big Tech) refuse to allow the distribution of smaller, alternate newspapers.

What we're seeing is called corporatocracy. Corporations seemingly have the "rights" of individuals, but the power of governments.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

15 Jan 2021, 3:43 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
Now, in this dangerous precedent we're setting, a "private" forum can be used to control any and all content by public officials. A great work-around, don't you think? Suppose, in an alternate reality, Twitter really LOVED Trump. Could they have said, "We are a private company, so we, the company, have decided to block Trump's dissenters on our own behalf?"


Why hasn't this happened? You would think that Twitter would like Trump for how he legitimised an idea of using their platform for thing so wide spread that other media report on what is said on it. So, why has Twitter just decided that it hates Trump and will ban him and people that support him in a way that could create a competitor?

Do you think this situation is more than just a difference of political opinion?

Trump has done everything in his power to try and delegitimise news sources that he has not agreed with, he is one of the most anti-free speech presidents in American history, who has a cult like following that eats up his lies and cause real harm. It is disgusting that private companies have been so greedy as to allow his rhetoric to go unchallenged. It is a failure of the existence of these large social networking entities that they profited off of the spread of lies. And that corruption runs the fact that equal freedom of speech as never existed but been at the mercy of the rich, who have historically been able to pick and choose who gets a say.

Even in the internet age, you think Donald Trump could have gotten the type of megaphone of attention if he was not born with a silver spoon in his butt? Capitalism is a poison that has allowed media and society to spread whatever message that the rich want. And the second that there is the rejection of straight up fascism of private institutions that might not want to have a part in allow it to go unchallenged, then there are calls for fairness under their terms.

I sympathise with the desire to be able to be heard, I in fact care greatly about tolerance of everyone regardless of what they are. But that tolerance ends at the intolerance of others. True tolerance does not follow the supporting of other's intolerance, that just allow discourse to allow certain people to be made into a subclass that may be at the time seen okay to dunk on and silence. And especially elements of purity culture still do it, certain subjects cannot be talked under even the idea of a public forum without being called obscene, for instance sex workers. Many people can still lose their job if they so happen to do a little something on the side.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


slam_thunderhide
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 307

16 Jan 2021, 8:16 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Gabbard is an awful person, a political extremist and an idiot.

Awful person: she’s a transphobe


For saying that women's sports should be limited to biological women? Her view is common sense, and your view is insane. But you just parrot the establishment line on everything, believing it to be moderate and centrist because you have no life experience to compare it with.

It's always amusing to see people barely out of school self-righteously throwing around buzzwords that didn't even exist before they were born.

Try typing "transphobia" into google's ngram viewer.

The_Walrus wrote:
, an apologist for dictators, and she has a long history of dodgy positions on foreign and social policy


Because she didn't want the US to help a bunch of Al Qaeda mercenaries overthrow the legitimate government of Syria for the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Israel? Because she doesn't want the US to engage in pointless antagonism against Russia?

Again, her view is the common sense one. I used to be swayed by the media's drivel about "standing up to dictators", but then I grew up. Maybe one day you will too.



slam_thunderhide
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 307

16 Jan 2021, 8:19 am

The President of Mexico has spoken out against Big Tech and Trump's Facebook ban. You might have thought he'd be someone who would rejoice in Trump's misfortune, but he clearly has some principles, unlike most of the keft-liberals on this thread.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -amlo-says



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

17 Jan 2021, 11:20 am

slam_thunderhide wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Gabbard is an awful person, a political extremist and an idiot.

Awful person: she’s a transphobe


For saying that women's sports should be limited to biological women? Her view is common sense, and your view is insane. But you just parrot the establishment line on everything, believing it to be moderate and centrist because you have no life experience to compare it with.

It's always amusing to see people barely out of school self-righteously throwing around buzzwords that didn't even exist before they were born.

Try typing "transphobia" into google's ngram viewer.

The_Walrus wrote:
, an apologist for dictators, and she has a long history of dodgy positions on foreign and social policy


Because she didn't want the US to help a bunch of Al Qaeda mercenaries overthrow the legitimate government of Syria for the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Israel? Because she doesn't want the US to engage in pointless antagonism against Russia?

Again, her view is the common sense one. I used to be swayed by the media's drivel about "standing up to dictators", but then I grew up. Maybe one day you will too.

There’s nothing “common sense” about anti-scientific bigotry. Weirdly, it’s actually the elites like yourself with no scientific knowledge who tend to have the most bigoted views about trans people. Journalists are much more transphobic than ordinary people and far more so than the experts. You’re parroting the elite establishment line which is completely at odds with majority opinion and indeed with reality. Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers.

Assad isn’t a legitimate ruler, but a bloodthirsty tyrant, and the Syrians who were fighting him were a broad coalition which included many groups other than terrorists.