Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Sep 27, 2016, 01:48:Slick wrote on Sep 27, 2016, 00:45:
I thought that Clinton did a great job personally, I was honestly surprised.
All I call back to is her speech at the DNC, which was awful, and so shrill, motherfucking Shrillary amirite?
But tonight she was poised, she was attentive, prepared, composed, and not shrill at all. Just the tone of her voice sounded like she was channeling that calm swagger that Obama has. I've been waiting for her to learn that lesson.
OMG and Trump talking about "the cyber" I almost died. Apparently he doesn't own a computer, or know anything about them, he has a smartphone which he tweets from, and that's about it.
That's ok, he'll put his 10 year old in charge of the cyber. It'll be tremendous. Believe me!
I did like one thing the moderator said. After Trump said he'd release his taxes after Hillary releases her deleted emails, the mod said, "So releasing your taxes is negotiable?"
I want to see more news agencies start nailing him on his bullshit tax claims. Where is his audit letter to prove he's even being audited? So much of his claims about his own success as a businessman, which is his primary argument for why he should be president, are not verifiable without access to his taxes. The press needs to get seriously educated about his "financial disclosure" stuff and what it does and does not show and start a full court press on him on that subject and not let up until he releases them.
Slick wrote on Sep 27, 2016, 00:45:
I thought that Clinton did a great job personally, I was honestly surprised.
All I call back to is her speech at the DNC, which was awful, and so shrill, motherfucking Shrillary amirite?
But tonight she was poised, she was attentive, prepared, composed, and not shrill at all. Just the tone of her voice sounded like she was channeling that calm swagger that Obama has. I've been waiting for her to learn that lesson.
OMG and Trump talking about "the cyber" I almost died. Apparently he doesn't own a computer, or know anything about them, he has a smartphone which he tweets from, and that's about it.
Quboid wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 21:54:
I'm following the BBC live blog, they're doing fact checking too.
Quboid wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 21:27:
Clinton calls out Trump for saying that "climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese".
Trump fires back, "I did not, I do not say that.”
Here's a 2012 tweet where he does in fact say that.
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:49:Quboid wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:18:Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:09:
Free speech and tolerance are two different things. You brought up free speech. Porn and I said tolerance, which is a liberal byword.
Free speech is the issue at hand. You brought up something irrelevant.
I don't think it's irrelevant, in or out this thread. I think free speech is a non-issue, since as people have pointed out, everything is free speech. There's nothing to argue about there.
But when people throughout the thread have been talking about the hypocrisy of the left, it's been about the tolerance issue. If someone supports an opinion that you don't believe in, are you able to say, that's his right, and move on? Do we want employers to employ litmus tests before hiring to make sure new hires believe the right things and wear the right hats before they're allowed to work there?
Slick and the Infinitely Prolonged can use free speech as a defense, but what's the virtue in going after Oculus? You can argue he's a public face, but I think the thing about "public faces" is that basically anyone can become a public face once the Internet bites down. Yesterday it was Mozilla's CEO. Today's it's a cofounder with extremely vague responsibilities. A few months ago it was some PR employee at Nintendo. Anyone can come under the Internet's scrutiny, which makes them all public faces.
And anyway, that whole argument is kind of saying that you'll use the power of the mob responsibly, only when it's really warranted. Free speech means you have the right to act this way, but it doesn't explain why. The underlying question is, what's good about basing your opinion of a company or its products on the things its employees do? Liberals recognize that as a lousy way to judge a religion or a country, isn't this a similar issue?
Back when this was Luckey's Kickstarter, or before Oculus was bought by Facebook, I could see this as a pragmatic issue. If you donate to his Kickstarter, it might succeed and then he might get rich and donate a tiny percentage of his wealth to Trump. But that ship has sailed.
Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:49:
Slick and the Infinitely Prolonged can use free speech as a defense, but what's the virtue in going after Oculus? You can argue he's a public face, but I think the thing about "public faces" is that basically anyone can become a public face once the Internet bites down. Yesterday it was Mozilla's CEO. Today's it's a cofounder with extremely vague responsibilities. A few months ago it was some PR employee at Nintendo. Anyone can come under the Internet's scrutiny, which makes them all public faces.
Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:49:You haven't explained what makes it a mob rather than just a bunch of people who don't like what the guy did and don't want to support him by supporting his company. Where exactly is the line between free speech and mob?
And anyway, that whole argument is kind of saying that you'll use the power of the mob responsibly, only when it's really warranted.
Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:49:I think this has already been explained. Why would I want to support the company that enriches him and enables him to give money to these racist groups? There aren't a lot of dots to connect here.
Free speech means you have the right to act this way, but it doesn't explain why. The underlying question is, what's good about basing your opinion of a company or its products on the things its employees do? Liberals recognize that as a lousy way to judge a religion or a country, isn't this a similar issue?
Quboid wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:24:Slick wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:19:
As if he's just a lowly programmer working in the bowels of a machine that isn't HIS COMPANY. Give me a break, you can't be that ignorant.
If Ronald McDonald started farting in every 3rd quarter-pounder, then I'd probably not eat at McDonalds. That's my right, my freedom.
It's Facebook's company, but he is a public face of it. If Ronald McDonald starting farting in burgers then his actions would directly affect you as a customer, that's not comparable.