by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:49 am
by Pandeeria » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:52 am
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:53 am
Pandeeria wrote:Are you proposing that we expand the first amendment to make businesses such as Twitter comply with it?
by Bakery Hill » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:54 am
by Minzerland » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:56 am
by Tyrinth » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:56 am
Bakery Hill wrote:"Radical progressive agenda"? As a socialist I'm quite happy the DNC's got hacked.
Ardoki wrote:Hitler was basically a libertarian, he supported the libertarian ideology of social Darwinism.
by Knootoss » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:56 am
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:57 am
by Pandeeria » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:57 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Pandeeria wrote:Are you proposing that we expand the first amendment to make businesses such as Twitter comply with it?
I would say its worth considering given the modern nature of the public square, yes. The alternative seems to be allowing the upper classes to control political discourse.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:58 am
Pandeeria wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I would say its worth considering given the modern nature of the public square, yes. The alternative seems to be allowing the upper classes to control political discourse.
Do you not believe that is treading on the right's of business owners? Or do you think that is a necessary evil to keep political discourse open and alive?
by Bakery Hill » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:02 am
by Pandeeria » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:06 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Pandeeria wrote:
Do you not believe that is treading on the right's of business owners? Or do you think that is a necessary evil to keep political discourse open and alive?
I think it's a necessary evil. Plenty of business regulations are put in place to safeguard the public good. Anti-trust acts for instance, etc.
Do private businesses have the right to deny transpeople bathrooms, for instance?
Its notable that the modern left only becomes pro-business rights when it comes to censorship.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:12 am
Pandeeria wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I think it's a necessary evil. Plenty of business regulations are put in place to safeguard the public good. Anti-trust acts for instance, etc.
Do private businesses have the right to deny transpeople bathrooms, for instance?
Its notable that the modern left only becomes pro-business rights when it comes to censorship.
Well, most the modern left now a days is extremely pro-business, and simply are in favor of regulation. But yeah, I agree, we should definitely consider expanding the first amendment further. Perhaps as long as the discussion doesn't directly threaten the business's well being (such as advertising a competitor) then open discussion should be allowed.
Westoropa wrote:Where can we see the DNC leaks?
by Flaskjinia » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:17 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Pandeeria wrote:
Well, most the modern left now a days is extremely pro-business, and simply are in favor of regulation. But yeah, I agree, we should definitely consider expanding the first amendment further. Perhaps as long as the discussion doesn't directly threaten the business's well being (such as advertising a competitor) then open discussion should be allowed.
True enough. It's the intersection of neoliberalism and radical progressivism. It allows elites to frame left-right politics in ways other than economic.Westoropa wrote:Where can we see the DNC leaks?
Wikileaks.
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:28 am
Gravlen wrote:What, exactly, are we crying censorship over here?
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:28 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Pandeeria wrote:Are you proposing that we expand the first amendment to make businesses such as Twitter comply with it?
I would say its worth considering given the modern nature of the public square, yes. The alternative seems to be allowing the upper classes to control political discourse.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:30 am
by Gravlen » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:39 am
Ostroeuropa wrote: Twitter removed DNCLeaks from its trending results at its peak. (Something they've done before, but not in an election year to relevant election news.).
Ostroeuropa wrote:It would be akin to removing a front page NS thread from view and using the defense that if you want to post in that thread you can use the search bar to find it.
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:47 am
Gravlen wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Twitter and Facebooks reaction to the DNC leaks.
Facebook has declared they are a 'dangerous' website and will block posting links to wikileaks.
That's because they host emails containing viruses though, isn't it?Ostroeuropa wrote: Twitter removed DNCLeaks from its trending results at its peak. (Something they've done before, but not in an election year to relevant election news.).
Your source said it was gone for 20 minutes? No tweets were removed, the hashtag wasn't banned....Ostroeuropa wrote:It would be akin to removing a front page NS thread from view and using the defense that if you want to post in that thread you can use the search bar to find it.
Actually, it would be like removing it from the Latest Thread tab on the left
<-
You can still access the thread, read it and post in it. That is not censorship.
by Vassenor » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:48 am
Gravlen wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Twitter and Facebooks reaction to the DNC leaks.
Facebook has declared they are a 'dangerous' website and will block posting links to wikileaks.
That's because they host emails containing viruses though, isn't it?Ostroeuropa wrote: Twitter removed DNCLeaks from its trending results at its peak. (Something they've done before, but not in an election year to relevant election news.).
Your source said it was gone for 20 minutes? No tweets were removed, the hashtag wasn't banned....Ostroeuropa wrote:It would be akin to removing a front page NS thread from view and using the defense that if you want to post in that thread you can use the search bar to find it.
Actually, it would be like removing it from the Latest Thread tab on the left
<-
You can still access the thread, read it and post in it. That is not censorship.
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:49 am
Vassenor wrote:
You're making people have to put effort in. Clearly that is censorship.
by Katganistan » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:50 am
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
by Minzerland » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:55 am
Katganistan wrote:
Since many people seem not to understand what the First Amendment actually IS.... let's go through this line by line.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1) Congress will not legally recognize any religion as the 'official' US religion, 2) Congress will not legally forbid any religion from being practiced freely; 3)Congress will not make a law limiting the freedom of speech, 4)Congress will not outlaw or limit the press (which can be interpreted as newspapers, radio news, television news, magazines, internet news); 5)Congress will not make it illegal for people to gather in groups that are not rioting/breaking the law/harassing people 6) Congress will not make it illegal to criticize the government and demand changes.
CONGRESS. The Government.
Individuals can shout you down. Colleges can tell you to get off their property. Businesses can say, "We choose not to allow you to use our social media site to say the things you say." TV stations don't HAVE to give you air time to say what you want (unless you're running for office, and then they have to give equal time to the candidates). Newspapers don't HAVE to publish your letters. Radio hosts can hang up on your ranting. Your boss can fire you for saying things that reflect badly on yur company, or that make others feel harassed (hostile workplace) if that is substantiated.
And NONE of that violates your freedom of speech.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ameriganastan, Ancientania, Based Illinois, Bhadeshistan, Bienenhalde, Bovad, Dresderstan, Eahland, Hidrandia, Kolatis, Ohnoh, Ors Might, Pasong Tirad, Port Carverton, Repreteop, Rusozak, San Lumen, Sao-Paulo, Shrillland, Tarsonis, The Astral Mandate, The Notorious Mad Jack, Tungstan, Uiiop, Valles Marineris Mining co, Vanuzgard, Verkhoyanska, Zancostan
Advertisement