US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Rascal said:
Maybe you are right as i am getting a proper kicking in this one :))

The world is a better place when we can discuss these topics though and lots of what has been said has been very thought provoking and highly educational.
Click to expand...

Which is the opposite of what Twitter has done. It shut it down and is probably more harmful. Fuck me “Frankie goes to Hollywood” absolutely thrived being banned! When will we learn the dross we inflict on society with this content regulation. The guy will become more of a martyr amongst his following.

Trumps Twitter career has included threats to bomb other sovereign nations or “when the looting starts the shooting starts” yet somehow his latest ramblings have crossed the line of decency. I’d have a lot more respect for twitters stance if it had done it a lot sooner. I’m looking forward to the BM thread in years to come that is titled “Twitters head of allowable comic content wants to see more right wing comedian contributors”
 
west didsblue said:
Not sure I agree. If the owner and operator of a social media platform doesn't have control over its own service, then that would need to apply to every platform including Bluemoon. There are laws in place in most countries that set the line between free speech and hate speech / incitement. It's up to Social Media platforms to abide by those laws. In Trump's case, the fact that he wasn't banned years ago is a failure both of the Social Media company for not following its own guidelines and a failure of law enforcement for not intervening when the threshold is crossed to hate speech and incitement.
Click to expand...
I think we do agree. In the world we've got, it's absolutely the social media platforms' responsibility to moderate these things. There's simply no other way.

Anyway, glad to see the discussion has finally moved on (unless I've just derailed it again!)
 
Rascal said:
On the contrary Mr Fog, it is registering my distrust in both.

If and thankfully I was not born in your capitalist hell hole of a country the only person i would consider voting for is Bernie Sanders, at least he is slightly left wing.

Moral cowardice is supporting those who send your fellow citizens to war for Capitalist gain and Imperialistic design. Moral cowardice is supporting those who refuse to give their fellow man healthcare provision, that is moral cowardice , that is America. Your nation is the nation of fuckwittery, your nation elected Trump, not mine, although we also have our own fuckwits who elected the Conservative party.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing “contrary” about registering your distrust and also being a coward.

Moral cowardice is refusing to stand up to a definable autocrat because you aren’t getting exactly everything you want from someone else.

I’m glad you aren’t American too — if you were and everyone thought like you, Trump would be inaugurated next week. Not only that, but if you were American, that wouldn’t be a problem for you, because Biden is just as bad and your guy — who supported Biden and agrees with me, by the way — didn’t get the nomination.

You know what’s “just as bad” as Trump? Smug, brainless idealism. Actually not just as bad. But just as smug and brainless.
 
metalblue said:
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with you! To a point :)

Firstly a bit of admin; I do not agree with nationalising business as a principle but there are certain industries that could be better for the tax payer if they were in the public purse.

The problem for me, and the one I believe you are flagging, is that private corporations should not have the unilateral power to decide what message is acceptable and what isn’t. These are powerful media companies who have the ability to force one message or another down our throats 24/7 if they so choose.

And this can matter beyond the ramblings of one lunatic, in the case of Twitter there have probably alienated 20% of the US population around 65m people. They will now likely gravitate to a media that will allow them to say what they want to say and here they may find some much darker messages that they eventually buy in to (tell someone something often enough and they believe it).

So the net outcome of these types of action Twitter has taken is that you lose a single platform where all sides of the debate are encouraged and people potentially educated and you end up with people gravitating to platforms that preach to the choir.

Heck if I was a crazy as Trump I’d be setting up TrumpChat.com to allow my followers to rant and rave - think about the advertising revenues!

What would be a far more preferable route would be to have an independent body who review material and if it is deemed unacceptable the person or group is banned from all media outlets including being in a position of power in one.
Click to expand...
So when we got our news from newspapers, did you complain about the moral outrage of editors choosing what stories made the grade?

If I say I want to rape your child, and stab you through the head, and I’m gonna do it, just you wait — what side of the “debate” is that?

And as always the “final solution” in the last paragraph is a totalitarian one. What happens if that “independent body” turns out to be, you know, not so “independent”? At least if I’m pissed off at Twitter I can communicate about a hundred other ways.

I’ve no beef with you but I think these questions are important.
 
Last edited:
kaz7 said:
Sen Hawley has lost his book deal, shame
Click to expand...
And the cheeky b*astard had the gall to threaten Simon & Shuster (the publisher) with a Law Suite because he said it 'infringed his 1st Amendment rights'.

He's a Constitutional lawyer, so he knows this is b*llshit. He's just saying it to rile up his (and Trump's) supporters and blaming 'radical left-wing cancel culture'.
 
Rascal said:
I am not and have not argued that at all.

I am arguing that a Corporation should not have the power to control political debate, because that is Oligarchy.
Click to expand...
But they don’t have that power. They have the power to ban users that break their code of conduct which is what Trump did for 4 years. They only relented to public pressure when he tried to actually subvert democracy and incite insurrection.

And by you saying that Trump shouldn’t have been banned as he was elected, you ARE essentially saying that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
So when we got our news from newspapers, did you complain about the moral outrage of editors choosing what stories made the grade?

If I say I want to rape your child, and stab you through the head, and I’m gonna do it, just you wait — what side of the “debate” is that?

And as always the “final solution” in the last paragraph is a totalitarian one. What happens if that “independent body” turns out to be, you know, not so “independent”? At least if I’m pissed off at Twitter I can communicate about a hundred other ways.

I’ve no beef with you but I think these questions are important.
Click to expand...

You’ve proven my argument to a point. Newspapers and television is not independent and hasn’t been for as long as I can remember. My newspaper of choice back in the day was “The Independent” for that reason but last time I looked at it it went down the same route of its competitors. Even the FT has had moments of biased views.

The internet was supposed to give us cat videos and this non-regulated freedom of expression and has to a point, Twitters unilateral action is a step against that and one more toward that editorial approach. The upshot of that will be lefties using Twitter and normal people using Snapchat or similar.

If you want to come and do those things mate (and I know you don’t) then posting it on headstabbingchat.com is going to find a lot of likeminded people encouraging you to do it. But posting it on BM or Twitter will have people telling you to get help. Depriving you of that choice is to fail you.

Moreover we have laws in place about inciting violence and these should be the mechanism deployed not arbitrary bans.

I understand what you mean about an independent body may be influenced (subconsciously even) due to their own political beliefs but at least it allows us a way to identify dangerous individuals and deny them the space to spread their poison and is probably better than the alternatives. Corporate decisions will, after all, be governed by revenue and I imagine being an upcoming chat service you’d bend over backwards to suddenly have Trump on board and his 80m followers.
 
Dubai Blue said:
How do you think Twitter should have handled this specific incident that has actually happened?
Click to expand...
He isn’t even aware of Trump’s specific tweets. That’s what makes his stance that ‘Twitter is wrong’ all the more ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top