Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 760

False dichotomy.

If you care about this video game, but don’t care about gun control, then you’re not interested in actually addressing what is causing these shootings.

It’s just an easy target for people to virtue-signal, not unlike how standing for the national anthem at a sporting even is just a way for lazy people to pretend to be good citizens.

Jeebus said:

Cops bring suicidal man to get help, then beat the crap out of him, FBI says

There are so many stories of cops beating the shit out of or murdering suicide threats. I’m sure all the “good” cops out there will be quick to come and defend these violent thugs with badges.

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

Anyone who cares about this video game but does not care about the lack of effective mental health laws in this country doesn’t actually give a damn about the lives of the students in these school shootings.

Phrased that way it doesn’t provide good discussion fodder, I hope you see.

A person can reasonably believe the game is terrible, that there is no reasonable gun control law that will effectively stop school shootings, and care tremendously about those lives.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Enforcing the 1st amendment on integral media platforms doesn’t do greater damage to free speech than it addresses. Youtube, to use that example, is a monolith that is the only real video platform available to people.

Mrebo said:

Anyone who cares about this video game but does not care about the lack of effective mental health laws in this country doesn’t actually give a damn about the lives of the students in these school shootings.

Phrased that way it doesn’t provide good discussion fodder, I hope you see.

If we’re talking about “unproductive” I am at discussion, how is it any more productive for you to ignore things that actually disprove your arguments, if you can even call them that. You said that Trump disavowed Roy Moore a while back and I proved you wrong yet you completely ignored it.

A person can reasonably believe the game is terrible, that there is no reasonable gun control law that will effectively stop school shootings, and care tremendously about those lives.

They’re wrong about gun control and all the data proves them wrong. Ignoring or obstructing the only thing that can actually address the problem while targeting a game no one has ever heard of proves to me that they don’t care too much about those lives, because if they did then they wouldn’t be distracting from the real issue. Just like how climate change deniers don’t really care about the environment.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Anyone who cares about this video game but does not care about the lack of effective mental health laws in this country doesn’t actually give a damn about the lives of the students in these school shootings.

Phrased that way it doesn’t provide good discussion fodder, I hope you see.

If we’re talking about “unproductive” I am at discussion, how is it any more productive for you to ignore things that actually disprove your arguments, if you can even call them that. You said that Trump disavowed Roy Moore a while back and I proved you wrong yet you completely ignored it.

I’m talking about that particular phrasing you used just then.

But to answer your nonsequitur on Moore: You tried to rationalize your claim that Moore was significant, in part because Trump. What I actually wrote was, “Some of it is really weak guilt by association type stuff. Trump and many other Republicans opposed Moore.” It’s a fact that Trump supported Moore’s opponent in the primary. Trump went on to endorse Moore in the general election in terms of ‘we need a Republican/we need to oppose the Democrats’ not ‘Roy Moore is so great’. So if your point is that Roy Moore is significant because Trump provided a generic endorsement in the end to protect the Republican agenda: not very convincing.

A person can reasonably believe the game is terrible, that there is no reasonable gun control law that will effectively stop school shootings, and care tremendously about those lives.

They’re wrong about gun control and all the data proves them wrong. Ignoring or obstructing the only thing that can actually address the problem while targeting a game no one has ever heard of proves to me that they don’t care too much about those lives, because if they did then they wouldn’t be distracting from the real issue. Just like how climate change deniers don’t really care about the environment.

I don’t know who all these people are. I think a person of any political persuasion would be troubled by that game. Your generalizations don’t strike me as terribly accurate.

At some point I’ll get into “global warming” with you 😉

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Enforcing the 1st amendment on integral media platforms doesn’t do greater damage to free speech than it addresses. Youtube, to use that example, is a monolith that is the only real video platform available to people.

I see videos posted on here related to fan edits that use different sites.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?

Obviously no one can start a competing Youtube at this point. Any such attempt would be delusional. I mean they’re just platforms because they’re in no way obligated to do anything other than be a platform for the videos or the speech. They’re not responsible for advertising a video or producing or printing anything like a publisher would be.

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Enforcing the 1st amendment on integral media platforms doesn’t do greater damage to free speech than it addresses. Youtube, to use that example, is a monolith that is the only real video platform available to people.

I see videos posted on here related to fan edits that use different sites.

Not sites with any kind of audience.

Idiots pounce on Jimmy Kimmel for daring to encourage compassion for an obviously insane friend of his:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-kimmel-calls-for-compassion-in-wake-of-roseanne-barr-controversy/

To sum up the “controversy” here, Kimmel says that while what Roseanne said is despicable and indefensible, she’s obvious unwell mentally and he doesn’t think that she’s in her right mind. In response, idiots basically say that only mentally ill and unstable people that go on inoffensive rants deserve compassion.

Also, I find it really disturbing how everyone is downplaying Ambien’s side effects. We have no real proof that Roseanne was actually on Ambien when she said her bullshit on Twitter, but regardless of her Ambien can have deadly side effects but I see people treating it like it’s no different than a One-a-Day vitamin.

EDIT: And to be fair, a lot of people agreed with Kimmel.

I found out today, again from the Young Turks (a very progressive leftist outlet), that Roseanne spent almost a year in an asylum after suffering sever brain damage as a young teenager in a car crash. I can see a lot of insanity in her behavior. She goes from one extreme to the other in minutes, e.g. apologize profusely and blaming herself but then minutes later going back to conspiracies about how the Obamas were involved in cancelling her show. Just before the election she was talking about how she was a socialist and how the right were all national socialists (Nazis) and then almost immediately afterward became a Trump supporter and turned on the left. She’s very obviously crazy, and everyone knew that. She’s been the butt of a lot of jokes for years now over how crazy she is. No one with even a shred of situational awareness should be surprised by her implosion.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?

Obviously no one can start a competing Youtube at this point. Any such attempt would be delusional. I mean they’re just platforms because they’re in no way obligated to do anything other than be a platform for the videos or the speech. They’re not responsible for advertising a video or producing or printing anything like a publisher would be.

It’s certainly possible to start a competitor to YouTube. The idea that it’s YouTube only and forever is delusional.

I’m not sure what you mean about platforms not being obligated. YouTube does plenty of things and can choose to do more at any moment. It can collaborate with and advertise user content (for all I know they might do some of this).

YouTube must expend money to host the videos which is very much like printing in a digital sense. Transcripts are generated. YouTube is producing and advertising it’s own content.

Twitter is active in deciding who to publish and how, shadow banning being one method. I was contacted by someone at the company looking for advice on credible people who tweet on certain topics so that those people could be promoted on the platform.

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Enforcing the 1st amendment on integral media platforms doesn’t do greater damage to free speech than it addresses. Youtube, to use that example, is a monolith that is the only real video platform available to people.

I see videos posted on here related to fan edits that use different sites.

Not sites with any kind of audience.

I think there are increasing opportunities for a new site that is more free speech friendly.

I also don’t like the idea that we’re all just fucked until someone else starts a competing business that is actually viable.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?

Obviously no one can start a competing Youtube at this point. Any such attempt would be delusional. I mean they’re just platforms because they’re in no way obligated to do anything other than be a platform for the videos or the speech. They’re not responsible for advertising a video or producing or printing anything like a publisher would be.

It’s certainly possible to start a competitor to YouTube. The idea that it’s YouTube only and forever is delusional.

Because blip.tv (which is now defunct) was so popular compared to Youtube. Or like Google+ is so popular compared to Facebook.

Ridiculous. You’re completely ignoring the effect market share can have on the success of a competing product or service. It’s like saying someone should build their own app store if they don’t like Google Play or Apple’s App Store. As though new customers would just come out of the woodwork when they’ve already invested so much in the other service.

To acknowledge that Steam or Youtube have basically cornered the market on their respective services is not delusional. There are competitors to Steam. But Steam is still by far the biggest dog in the yard, and for good reason. No one is saying “only and forever”, but to assume they don’t have near-monopolistic influences on their markets is rather foolish.

It’s the market equivalent of the conservative response to federally legalizing gay marriage, which was “If you want to get married then move to a state where it’s legal.” It’s basically just giving someone the middle finger.

Not really. No one can get the audience there that they could on YouTube.

I don’t know. I got adblock because most of the ads I saw were political propaganda.