Politics... US election edition

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

Because it's not the government. Duh.

I don't understand this though. It's like saying you are ok with assassination and slavery as long as it's not government engaging in such. I would need more indepth explanation.

23 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Because Free Speech as enshrined in the US Constitution is specifically addressed to the actions of the government.  Private individuals (and companies) have been free to censor themselves/for themselves or for their product, and we've seen them with things like the Motion Picture Production Code or the Comics Code Authority on large scale before. Neither prevented things violating the respective codes from being made or distributed, even if the distribution networks were limited or private.

I understand that this is how it's worked in US. But I don't see statements about how it is or was to be arguments of why it suppose to be like this. "Because that's how it always been" is not a very compelling argument for me.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

14 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Anyone remember Trump voters' motto and taunt to liberals after he won back in 2016? With their increasingly pathetic (and completely unsubstantiated) claims and crying of cheating and voter fraud, it's hard for it not to come to mind...

The sheer amount of cope is the funniest **** I've seen this year.

[Amentep]

34 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I don't understand this though. It's like saying you are ok with assassination and slavery as long as it's not government engaging in such. I would need more indepth explanation.

I understand that this is how it's worked in US. But I don't see statements about how it is or was to be arguments of why it suppose to be like this. "Because that's how it always been" is not a very compelling argument for me.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that every space public or private should be a platform for free speech.  This seems extremely broad to me.  This will be a bit silly, but if interpreted literally and en extremis, it would mean the individual would have no right to get someone out of their yard yelling their political beliefs at you regardless of the time of day or night.  That abortion protestors could set up photographs and hold speeches in a local diner while the individual was trying to have a quiet night out eating a dinner.  That a company could lie in advertising because that was their "free speech" and to not let them lie is to abridge the free speech to the company and the individual serving as spokesperson. That a religious groups could try to convert an individual while they tried to watch a local theater play.  That TV's and radios couldn't be turned off less the individual inadvertently silence someone's free speech by changing channels or turning it off.

In essence I think the kind of free speech that is never impeded by government, companies, or individuals comes with a lot of problems and little benefit.  As mentioned, in our historical examples of corporate self-censorship (Hays Code, Comics Code) there were created other distribution models for things that existed outside those codes for those who chose to seek them out because that's what they wanted.  The example that gets trotted out a lot regarding censorship these days are the social media companies, but there is nothing preventing distribution of ideas through other platforms (even if those platforms have to be created) if Twitter or Facebook block something. 

As I said before the right to free speech does not, as I see it, also come with a right to an audience. 

[Hurlshort]

43 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I don't understand this though. It's like saying you are ok with assassination and slavery as long as it's not government engaging in such. I would need more indepth explanation.

Banning a twitter account is the same as assassination and slavery?

[LadyCrimson]

*Wakes up, looks at election maps*

....I had cats who could count faster than this.

*Goes back to sleep*

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, LadyCrimson said:

*Wakes up, looks at election maps*

....I had cats who could count faster than this.

*Goes back to sleep*

The baseline seems to be 3000 ballots per hour. Once a ballot is fed into a machine and a result is tabulated, it has to be audited, then certified, then passed off to a reporting authority. Also, volunteers need to eat, sleep, use the bathroom, etc.

Blame the legislatures that didn't think pre-processing of mail-in ballots was necessary or even valuable.

EDIT: FWIW, the race is essentially over at this point and Biden has won. The voting percentages in the remaining states are not breaking in a way that suggests an upset is even possible, let alone likely.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Achilles

[Hurlshort]

I believe the concerns over pre-processing were leaked results and arguments about it influencing election day. I can see that.

[Bartimaeus]

Didn't seem to change anything for Florida, who does count their ballots early and where Biden was a mild polling favorite.

[Keyrock]

Don't mind me, I'm just hiding in the polling sites and smudging black sharpie bubbles. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I believe the concerns over pre-processing were leaked results and arguments about it influencing election day. I can see that.

To clarify:

Some states allowed mail-in ballots to have signatures verified and envelopes opened before November 3rd. Some states also began removing ballots from envelopes and feeding them into voting machines Tuesday morning.

Other states waited until November 5th to start doing any of that.

"Pre-processing" doesn't necessarily mean "counting the votes" and I should have been more specific in my previous post

EDIT: Not to mention that PA uses not one but two envelopes, making even more work for volunteers who have twice as much paper to process and a few more hoops to jump through when deciding whether a ballot has been spoiled or not.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Achilles

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

Your argument, as I understand it, is that every space public or private should be a platform for free speech.  This seems extremely broad to me.  This will be a bit silly, but if interpreted literally and en extremis, it would mean the individual would have no right to get someone out of their yard yelling their political beliefs at you regardless of the time of day or night.  That abortion protestors could set up photographs and hold speeches in a local diner while the individual was trying to have a quiet night out eating a dinner.  That a company could lie in advertising because that was their "free speech" and to not let them lie is to abridge the free speech to the company and the individual serving as spokesperson. That a religious groups could try to convert an individual while they tried to watch a local theater play.  That TV's and radios couldn't be turned off less the individual inadvertently silence someone's free speech by changing channels or turning it off.

In essence I think the kind of free speech that is never impeded by government, companies, or individuals comes with a lot of problems and little benefit.  As mentioned, in our historical examples of corporate self-censorship (Hays Code, Comics Code) there were created other distribution models for things that existed outside those codes for those who chose to seek them out because that's what they wanted.  The example that gets trotted out a lot regarding censorship these days are the social media companies, but there is nothing preventing distribution of ideas through other platforms (even if those platforms have to be created) if Twitter or Facebook block something. 

As I said before the right to free speech does not, as I see it, also come with a right to an audience. 

And yet again you completely ignore the "if they want to" part and now you try to insinuate something I never said. I'm talking about free speech and censorship. Never mention anything about right to an audience if anything I talked about the right to not be cut off from your (willing) audience. And suggesting that free speech means someone can breach your private property is just bonkers. Why instead of making up crazy stories you answer the question of why you hate people having free speech rights? I can even get you started: "I support my corporate masters to censor people because..." fill free to fill up the blanks.

54 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Banning a twitter account is the same as assassination and slavery?

So it's ok to take away people rights just because it's not assassination or slavery?

[Bartimaeus]

The United States of America's next president, folks:

he'll be 82 by the end of his first term, lmao

Edited November 6, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[LadyCrimson]

1 minute ago, Bartimaeus said:

he'll be 82 by the end of his first term, lmao

Don't worry, I hear 80 is the new 30.

[HoonDing]

3 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

[Bartimaeus]

for anyone who has no clue who the above person is (like me): https://the-boys.fandom.com/wiki/Homelander

Edited November 6, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Darkpriest]

9 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

The United States of America's next president, folks:

he'll be 82 by the end of his first term, lmao

He will get replaced as soon as summer 2021 by Harris

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

8 minutes ago, LadyCrimson said:

Don't worry, I hear 80 is the new 30.

You have that reversed. 

[LadyCrimson]

Every time I see pictures of Trump or Biden's smiles, I think about how at least they still have nice teeth for their age. Or more likely, very good veneers. Maybe I should get some too. 

[Amentep]

30 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

And yet again you completely ignore the "if they want to" part and now you try to insinuate something I never said. I'm talking about free speech and censorship. Never mention anything about right to an audience if anything I talked about the right to not be cut off from your (willing) audience.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that "if someone wants to" then they will find away, even if they have to create that way (hence the reference to the various codes and industries that popped up to circumvent those codes).  In this case, the willing audience flipping to CNN or Fox news or anyone who carried the broadcast would allow them access to the speech.

Similarly, the unwilling audience could have flipped the channel to anything else had those broadcast networks not turned off the speech.  But your argument seems to be is that private corporations who broadcast these channels don't have the right to choose to be a willing/unwilling audience, to which I would disagree.

 

[Zoraptor]

45 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

for anyone who has no clue who the above person is (like me): https://the-boys.fandom.com/wiki/Homelander

You need to know the scene context too for the pic to work, not just who the character is. Though it can be inferred from the wiki article anyway.

He's meant to rescue that plane, instead it goes down in flames, no survivors. Then it's turned into a big victory by

Amazon Vought

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, Amentep said:

But your argument seems to be is that private corporations who broadcast these channels don't have the right to choose to be a willing/unwilling audience, to which I would disagree.

 

worse. he is saying they do not have the right to avoid being an unwilling publisher of of speech which the publisher knows or believes with a high degree o' uncertainty to be untrue or knowing false. 

and keep in mind, being a publisher does not insulate an individual from defamation. the standard for public issues and individuals is extreme high, but if you genuine know a lie is being uttered, you expose self to legal liability if you do not stop publishing the lie.

if were a newspaper, am doubtful skarp_one would be confused. can't force the newspaper man to use his ink and paper and delivery services to publish a lie they do not believe. obvious, no? radio and tv creates a mental hurdles some folks cannot overcome.  

there is always gonna be conflicting personal liberty rights when there is a disagreement between citizens. is good that the US government is prohibited from deciding who has the superior speech save for extreme limited circumstances. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Raithe]

"From a certain point of view...."

 

 

[Darkpriest]

I'm calling it, you will not know who is the new POTUS until mid Jan 2021

 

[Guest]

If Laura Cox said it, it must be true

Edited November 6, 2020 by Achilles

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Skarpen said:

So it's ok to take away people rights just because it's not assassination or slavery?

You are really committed to this bit.