Jump to content

Politics... World events


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Ok, I'll bite. Where are these (full of lies) left extreme twitter accounts that should be censored?

Honest question, because I don't know any of them.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-empty-parking-lot/

 

Russiagate

Hunter Biden Story

Riots, being caalled peaceful protests

 

This is just 5s thoughts. Don't want to spend more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought you'd give me a twitter account similar to Trump that just spews bs all day long and not a few random stories.

Edited by Lexx

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Sorry, I thought you'd give me a twitter account similar to Trump that just spews bs all day long and not a few random stories.

I don'tbuse Twitter and don't follow a Twitter, but my guess would be, that AOC is such a bs spewing person

Link to post
Share on other sites

"my guess" ok.

To me this smells like just the same right-wing bs as always.

Edited by Lexx

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-empty-parking-lot/

 

Russiagate

Hunter Biden Story

Riots, being caalled peaceful protests

 

This is just 5s thoughts. Don't want to spend more. 

Wait, on that AOC story, Snopes is saying she WAS in front of a detention center, not an empty parking lot. Why did you post that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Wait, on that AOC story, Snopes is saying she WAS in front of a detention center, not an empty parking lot. Why did you post that?

It is because when right wing media makes false accusations of AOC it is AOC fault that she wasn't clear  enough, in photographs taken of her without her knowing and published without asking her, which allowed right wing media to make that false accusation. Just you typical case of left wing politicians lying constantly 😋

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

The entire list is BS 

I honestly have no idea why you guys continue to engage

duty_calls.png

 

  • Haha 2

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for me personally - I have never heard about that "photo incident", and I have no idea what the Hunter Biden story is (the weird laptop thing??), and russiagate is just ?? for me as well. Soo...

 

The reason why I asked about it is, because the rhetoric reminded me somewhat of our situation in germany. The right wing keeps proclaiming that "left wing terrorism" is extremely dangerous in germany, meanwhile right wingers are assassinating people since years in secret. But yes, "left wing terrorism" is the danger we are facing. 🤔

Edited by Lexx
  • Thanks 1

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lexx said:

The reason why I asked about it is, because the rhetoric reminded me somewhat of our situation in germany. The right wing keeps proclaiming that "left wing terrorism" is extremely dangerous in germany, meanwhile right wingers are assassinating people since years in secret. But yes, "left wing terrorism" is the danger we are facing. 🤔

Maybe the NSU was just the RAF in disguise, like ANTIFA pretended to be MAGA-guys when they stormed the Capitol? :yes:

  • Gasp! 1

We all have signed the pacts, we knew so well nothing was left
We are being born at the sound of ends, and yes we still believe in beauty
It used to be the pride of Man, now a flame put out by the cold in his hand

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

The entire list is BS 

I honestly have no idea why you guys continue to engage

There's no point in engaging those arguing in clear bad faith - they're not interested in alternative viewpoints or counterarguments or your opinions or anything of the sort, they're just here to spread their misinformation and confuse the issues, and getting engagement from and annoying you is no doubt just the cherry on top of it all. There will never be a big light bulb moment where they suddenly start considering things from different angles or from others' values. There are posters whom I emphatically disagree with most every time they post in a thread like this, but whom I can understand to a degree when I consider their values, the time and place they grew up in, their critical life experiences, etc. I might not ever see things the same way they do, but I can see where they come from. I cannot say the same for the strangers among us who doggedly, persistently stick to the same script week after week with absolutely zero consideration of any kind for anyone else.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lexx said:

Well, for me personally - I have never heard about that "photo incident", and I have no idea what the Hunter Biden story is (the weird laptop thing??), and russiagate is just ?? for me as well. Soo...

The weird laptop thing was a bit later, the gist is that Hunter Biden was stupid or greedy enough to take a position on the Board of a Ukrainian gas company (Burisma) which he had no qualifications to hold except for his father being VP. The prosecutor in charge of corruption investigations then got fired. Allegation is that Biden (sr) got that prosecutor fired to protect his son. There really isn't any evidence to support that, the prosecutor almost certainly got fired for being generally useless with the timing being coincidental. Hunter Biden taking that position was a really bad look though, with the absolutely best possible face put on it he was incredibly- unbelievably- naive. Then again, Trumpists can hardly throw about accusations of filial graft without appearing mildly hypocritical.

Russiagate is the belief that 'Russia stole the election for Trump' was a big hoax embiggened by media as a way to deligitimise Trump. Effectively it's the reverse position from "Russia stole the election, Hillary would have won in a landslide without their interference". Neither position is exactly rooted in reality, just in political tribalism.

Dunno about AOC, but I thought it was hilarious that her (analogue's) power in 'The Boys' was to cause people's heads to blow up, since that's her metaphorical power here as well.

Edited by Zoraptor
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShadySands said:

The entire list is BS 

I honestly have no idea why you guys continue to engage

Yeah, my forum experience got a lot better when I just stopped giving a **** about dead end arguments.

  • Like 1

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"I'm fine with humanity being wiped out" - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2021 at 4:09 AM, KaineParker said:

Yeah, my forum experience got a lot better when I just stopped giving a **** about dead end arguments.

I guess you should read this then. 

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/the-end-does-not-justify-the-means,politics,3409.html

@BruceVC might have something for you as well

 

Edited by Darkpriest
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I guess you should read this then. 

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/the-end-does-not-justify-the-means,politics,3409.html

@BruceVC might have something for you as well

 

That was a good read and the article raises some valid concerns primarily around the intolerance of people who believe their view is right and if you dont agree the discussion should be shut down because you must be a " bigot " or right wing 

We must be all be aware of this and try not be part of the problem raised exactly in the link 

 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

That was a good read and the article raises some valid concerns primarily around the intolerance of people who believe their view is right and if you dont agree the discussion should be shut down because you must be a " bigot " or right wing 

We must be all be aware of this and try not be part of the problem raised exactly in the link 

 

Doesn't work too well with current students, even at Harvard.

https://iblnews.org/harvard-students-request-to-revoke-graduate-diplomas-of-prominent-trump-supporters/

But such is the price of neglecting education in favor of dogmatism and zealotry. 

Funny, how looking at the words of this person from the 80s, one cannot escape inclinations to spot corelation of those warnings with what is in the last couple decades and today going on in US and by extension in the Western culture, while the biggest competitors remain culturally homogenous and working towards their greater goals. 

I wonder, how much truth there was in those words, and how much of a manipulation. Can't really verif the source of the clip. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the politically driven private censorship of various legal political views is now used as a valid excuse for more authoritarian individuals to curb on social media overall. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/turkey-turns-table-twitter-well-never-allow-digital-fascism

It's now hard to defend sm as free speech platforms, if they've proven they are anything but that. 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-twitter-pinterest-ad-ban-social-media-law

Edited by Darkpriest
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

So the politically driven private censorship of various legal political views is now used as a valid excuse for more authoritarian individuals to curb on social media overall. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/turkey-turns-table-twitter-well-never-allow-digital-fascism

It's now hard to defend sm as free speach platforms, if they've proven they are anything but that. 

But a country like Turkey is the same as Russia, China and many ME countries. They dont support or believe in freedom of speech so any excuse to clamp down on platforms like Twitter will occur

This doesn't change the fact SM is part of the mechanism where people can express themselves in most countries that have freedom of speech enshrined in their Constitutions. But their is a limit to freedom of speech so what happened in the USA is not an attack on freedom of speech where Trump was banned from most SM platforms 

This was a direct consequence, and its understandable, how SM platforms were abused by various right wing groups and this  contributed towards the Capitol violence on the 6  

  • Thanks 1

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

But a country like Turkey is the same as Russia, China and many ME countries. They dont support or believe in freedom of speech so any excuse to clamp down on platforms like Twitter will occur

This doesn't change the fact SM is part of the mechanism where people can express themselves in most countries that have freedom of speech enshrined in their Constitutions. But their is a limit to freedom of speech so what happened in the USA is not an attack on freedom of speech where Trump was banned from most SM platforms 

This was a direct consequence, and its understandable, how SM platforms were abused by various right wing groups and this  contributed towards the Capitol violence on the 6  

One thing is to remove an account of a suspect, who participated in the illegal entry to the capitol, the other thing is to remove someone for voicing the views and opinion or even lies. As long as that is within the legal speech and the person is not charged or put into a 'suspect' position, then you should never, ever censor what that person is saying, especially when you are not liable for what that person is saying. You might categorize it as Adult Only if there is some language, profanity, but that's it. 

Otherwise, the SM is free speech argument collapses and changes to 'free speech as long as it is our views', which is not meeting the criteria of free speech, right? 

It will for sure make a lot more people approve of actions against politically biased SM, even if in principle they would be critical of a given 'regulatory' action. 

 

Edited by Darkpriest
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of free speech is that people including companies don't have to publish anything they don't want

Edited by Elerond
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/ireland-needs-four-million-migrants-to-sustain-state-pension-system-39985277.html

So the cultural changes and as a result lower replacement rates in the 'native' population (lower rate of marriegas, higher divorce rates, lower child count per family, later pregnancies, etc.), require immigrants to cover the gaps required in the permanent debt driven growth model of economy. 

At which point society and economy will collapse and lead to a really ugly global conflict? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Part of free speech is that people including companies don't have to publish anything they don't want

Yes, and other companies in other countries can deny them access to the local internet (it does not matter that the owner of that company really likes a given political group and officials, does it?) , and we can create more echo chambers, more bubbles, more extreme views can fester, and societies can polarize more and dehumanize each other more. 

Just perfect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:

Yes, and other companies in other countries can deny them access to the local internet (it does not matter that the owner of that company really likes a given political group and officials, does it?) , and we can create more echo chambers, more bubbles, more extreme views can fester, and societies can polarize more and dehumanize each other more. 

Just perfect. 

Yes. Companies have right to hold their opinions too.

Also for some reason people don't seem to care other human rights like

Article 14.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 3.
 
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
 
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 13.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 15.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 18.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 20.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 22.
 
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
 
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 26.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
 
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 30.
 
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies can censor whatever they like. What they can't then turn around and do- without looking like massive hypocrites at very least- is claim that other entities censoring them is an awful crime against freeze peach and liberty. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's why Twitter got laughed at when complaining about getting banned in Uganda a few days ago as a crime against 'basic human rights'; (1) if you want to apply Jack Dorsey's standards don't be surprised if Uganda applies Museveni's standard's right back and (2) bans become matters of basic human rights, when you're the one getting the ban.

It's ultimately completely self defeating to selectively apply free speech criteria based on an approved political slant as a social media outlet; if you have free speech applied impartially you can rightly complain about others censoring you, if on the other hand you're partial and selective in applying those measures you can hardly complain when someone does the same back- and be absolutely sure that it will be thrown back in your face by those you disagree with politically and who have the power to retaliate.

Edited by Zoraptor
  • Thanks 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Companies can censor whatever they like. What they can't then turn around and do- without looking like massive hypocrites at very least- is claim that other entities censoring them is an awful crime against freeze peach and liberty. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's why Twitter got laughed at when complaining about getting banned in Uganda a few days ago as a crime against 'basic human rights'; (1) if you want to apply Jack Dorsey's standards don't be surprised if Uganda applies Museveni's standard's right back and (2) bans become matters of basic human rights, when you're the one getting the ban.

It's ultimately completely self defeating to selectively apply free speech criteria based on an approved political slant as a social media outlet; if you have free speech applied impartially you can rightly complain about others censoring you, if on the other hand you're partial and selective in applying those measures you can hardly complain when someone does the same back- and be absolutely sure that it will be thrown back in your face by those you disagree with politically and who have the power to retaliate.

But Zora, surely you don't want to claim that Americans are hyprocrites ! We need to support the USA and Western culture unquestioningly. Their can be no argument here, right? It's best for us all! /Bruce

lol

  • Haha 1

We all have signed the pacts, we knew so well nothing was left
We are being born at the sound of ends, and yes we still believe in beauty
It used to be the pride of Man, now a flame put out by the cold in his hand

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...