Jivaro wrote on Jan 19, 2021, 15:04:
Brady wins the Super Bowl and anybody still arguing he is not the best is going to be pointed at and laughed at as a bitter troll. Even without that it's hard to make an argument that can be taken seriously.
wtf_man wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:52:
A whole platform was silenced by 3 tech companies.
When we silence dialogue and see our own neighbors as the enemy we have lost our way.
Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:00:
I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.
Intentions do matter, but there's a reason even that bastion of conservatism, the ACLU, is worried about what's going on. If what is taking place regarding suppression of voices doesn't cause a little panic in your heart (even if met by a measure of relief) you aren't really that concerned with the intent of the first amendment. Many people seem ecstatic to paint everything as black and white when it suits their political leanings, but the world is far more grey.
Things could be going lord of the flies out there and some of your would be cheering it as a victory.
Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 13:56:
I know, right? Which means Twitter and Facebook and all the other social media apps should have been shut down this summer as well.
Everyone is OK with censoring people they disagree with. Just wait until it's your opinion they disagree with and you get censored. I don't agree with either side, since they are both full of self-serving politicians just looking to get rich and powerful off the backs of the people. The logic defying twists both sides play trying to redefine reality is just mind blowing.
I just wish Blue would stop posting Political Headlines... unless directly related to gaming, like the Jack Thompson asshat.
D-Rock wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:42:Saboth wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 14:14:
If we go that route, then I'd also argue Fox, Newsmax, OANN, and the others need massive oversight and regulation. If you purport to be news, you should employ journalists with actual degrees and experience in journalism, be held to some kind of journalistic standards, have to provide at least some kind of sources for your "stories" (other than "some people believe"), etc. Hell, we also need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan scrapped that paved the way for these political propaganda outlets.
What you've described is an issue that applies to all media. Prior to the election the left media constantly cited 'anonymous sources' for their big 'stories'. An anonymous source is not a source. That's just one example of the left's integrity issues. If you want to regulate it has to apply to everyone.
Good luck finding actual fact checkers that are not biased though...
Capitan wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 01:10:
I have to say I feel sorry for you in the United States. Now that Trump is gone, you can already now see that countries like North Korea, China, Iran will take advantage of you again.
TriggleDiggle wrote on Jan 8, 2021, 21:44:
For hundreds of years you Americans all had the freedom to publicly dissent, question your government and each other. Even promote conspiracies, People on all sides complained that their opponents were wrong and shouldn't be permitted to speak but they were protected and in the end your country was more stable and stronger for it.
And now in just 20 years almost all public discourse has moved online, And because those protections don't "technically" apply in the same way the people with power get their wish and are able to silence their opposition
Quboid wrote on Jan 6, 2021, 22:58:Verno wrote on Jan 6, 2021, 22:53:
Really upset about today. Nothing to add to the discussion except Mitt Romney's excellent speech. Cruz, Hawley and their ilk should pay a heavy price for their support of this dangerous farce.
Well said, and Romney did speak well, but I think that's the wrong link.
Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 17, 2020, 12:27:
I said what she did "is nice" and that "She deserves credit for the donation". But yes, I did minimize it -- because based on her estimated $60b net worth giving away $4.2b is less than you giving away 15% of your earnings. It is helpful, it is good, but for her it is not a sacrifice. It didn't reduce any of her options, as I'm sure your 15% donation did. I'm glad she is being charitable, but don't give her more credit than she deserves.
When you get $38b in a divorce settlement giving away $4.2b is nice -- but hardly a sacrifice. She deserves credit for the donation, but let's not saint her yet...