NationStates

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Geneviev wrote:She stands up to Trump. And, she's just very cool.

Shes a centrist and a neoliberal. I dont give a shit that she has a personal feud with Trump.

I consider her personal feud with Trump very important. I appreciate that she cares.

Geneviev wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Shes a centrist and a neoliberal. I dont give a shit that she has a personal feud with Trump.

I consider her personal feud with Trump very important. I appreciate that she cares.

pretty much every person on capitol hill with a (D) next to their name has a "personal feud" with trump tho

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Government by assassination when?

I was hoping for more of a Thailand coup/counter-coup situation, perhaps with the Trumps filling in as a sort of faux noir farcical version of the Shinawatras-- E! and TMZ need more programming targeted to polisci majors and I think this would really do quite well

Senkaku wrote:What if they're not just excuses to most of the people making them, and we've crossed a sort of moral event horizon where enough people actually sincerely believe in certain violent acts being good or useful? And separately, I'm not sure how eschewed the killing of civilians really is today (or at the very least, their immiseration and displacement for strategic or political ends).

I'm confident that's the case, I don't think the people insisting their reasons for political violence are good (which will surely give them comfort if they're killed by those whose reasons are wrong) are just pretending. The only point where I'd disagree is the idea that it's a moral event horizon and not something that can be walked back. It took a number of steps for the bombing of Dresden to seem cool but even though we signed off on staggering air raids to make sure that as many first responders as possible would be killed by the second wave we worked back to "Well let's not do that." We have not crossed the rubicon as long as we're willing to make an effort to turn back.

But if I'm wrong hedge your bets and own a gun.
I'm not talking about denying people resources or dignity, I'm talking about openly and deliberately killing them as part of your strategy. I mean it's popular with terrorists but doesn't get much love elsewhere.

Necroghastia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:I consider her personal feud with Trump very important. I appreciate that she cares.

pretty much every person on capitol hill with a (D) next to their name has a "personal feud" with trump tho

Yes. And pretty much all of them are cool, in my opinion.

Geneviev wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:pretty much every person on capitol hill with a (D) next to their name has a "personal feud" with trump tho

Yes. And pretty much all of them are cool, in my opinion.

... is that all it takes?

Geneviev wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Shes a centrist and a neoliberal. I dont give a shit that she has a personal feud with Trump.

I consider her personal feud with Trump very important. I appreciate that she cares.

Cares about what?

Necroghastia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Yes. And pretty much all of them are cool, in my opinion.

... is that all it takes?

Yep!

Kexholm Karelia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:I consider her personal feud with Trump very important. I appreciate that she cares.

Cares about what?

What Trump is doing.

Earlier people were taking issue with private companies being able to ban people from their platforms. Seems to me one of the answers to this is to have the US government set up a platform, that would make it subject to the first amendment. Of course, there are other issues that would come with this, but it would fix that one issue.

Neutraligon wrote:Earlier people were taking issue with private companies being able to ban people from their platforms. Seems to me one of the answers to this is to have the US government set up a platform, that would make it subject to the first amendment. Of course, there are other issues that would come with this, but it would fix that one issue.

This is a tricky issue because a government run platform will likely be subject to corruption, I think the best way is to make a special distinction for social media platforms operating within the US to abide by the first amendment in regulating their content as a form of free speech and press

Kexholm Karelia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Earlier people were taking issue with private companies being able to ban people from their platforms. Seems to me one of the answers to this is to have the US government set up a platform, that would make it subject to the first amendment. Of course, there are other issues that would come with this, but it would fix that one issue.

This is a tricky issue because a government run platform will likely be subject to corruption, I think the best way is to make a special distinction for social media platforms operating within the US to abide by the first amendment in regulating their content as a form of free speech and press

That would run afoul of the first amendment. Maybe a public-private partnership? Essentially a company hired by the US, and thus subject to stricter regulations than a fully private business.

Neutraligon wrote:

Kexholm Karelia wrote:This is a tricky issue because a government run platform will likely be subject to corruption, I think the best way is to make a special distinction for social media platforms operating within the US to abide by the first amendment in regulating their content as a form of free speech and press

That would run afoul of the first amendment. Maybe a public-private partnership? Essentially a company hired by the US, and thus subject to stricter regulations than a fully private business.

The system we have now is if you can string together enough servers you can make whatever you want with blackjack and hookers.

We are currently kabitzing on a website that was created exactly that way.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Galloism wrote:It's really not an "extreme centrist view point". It's left wing viewpoint encouraging reflection.

This is a lie that has been eating at me that I was going to let go but it's so egregious and so self congratulatory that I apparently cannot let it go.

The narrative here that he wants to present is that this comes as part of his own self relflection of excusing left wing violence over the course of the summer.

But should you peruse the the COVID thread (just pick up any point in the conversation from that period) from the time, this is actually just part of a long pattern of him excusing right wing terror and intimidation with no shortage of critiques for the George Floyd protests.

If you want a pattern of encouragement, of excuse making and emboldening, there is no straighter line than making excuses for armed right wing demonstrators intimidating government officials in the summer and those same individuals storming the Capitol building. Somehow in the mirror of self reflection that became something else because it makes a good story. But it's just that. It's just a story.

Nah, that intimidation was also wrong.

You'll note at that time, I was talking explicitly about protests and the spread of covid and a particular study that was being misrepresented regarding the spread of covid.

But you didn't read that either, so who can be surprised.

Galloism wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:This is a lie that has been eating at me that I was going to let go but it's so egregious and so self congratulatory that I apparently cannot let it go.

The narrative here that he wants to present is that this comes as part of his own self relflection of excusing left wing violence over the course of the summer.

But should you peruse the the COVID thread (just pick up any point in the conversation from that period) from the time, this is actually just part of a long pattern of him excusing right wing terror and intimidation with no shortage of critiques for the George Floyd protests.

If you want a pattern of encouragement, of excuse making and emboldening, there is no straighter line than making excuses for armed right wing demonstrators intimidating government officials in the summer and those same individuals storming the Capitol building. Somehow in the mirror of self reflection that became something else because it makes a good story. But it's just that. It's just a story.

Nah, that intimidation was also wrong.

You'll note at that time, I was talking explicitly about protests and the spread of covid and a particular study that was being misrepresented regarding the spread of covid.

But you didn't read that either, so who can be surprised.

I read it. The record stands.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Galloism wrote:Nah, that intimidation was also wrong.

You'll note at that time, I was talking explicitly about protests and the spread of covid and a particular study that was being misrepresented regarding the spread of covid.

But you didn't read that either, so who can be surprised.

I read it. The record stands.

Indeed it does.

Adamede wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
In history? Sure.
But now? Well, look at all the arrests at capitol hill.

You do realize that history isn’t just words in a dusty old book do you?
The person with the biggest gun wins.

I do know how comparisons work, but in this context, it does not.

Based on the other half of your comment I’m thinking you don’t actually know how much of anything actually works.

How did the siege of Capitol Hill go?
Because, the police at the time didn't have the largest guns, the the Executive took a while to react.
Meanwhile, these terrorists were calling to lynch Pence.

I think as well, there is a big difference between violence by a mob, and a law which stipulates the loss of your freedoms from committing a crime.

Celritannia wrote:

Adamede wrote:You do realize that history isn’t just words in a dusty old book do you?
The person with the biggest gun wins.


Based on the other half of your comment I’m thinking you don’t actually know how much of anything actually works.

How did the siege of Capitol Hill go?
Because, the police at the time didn't have the largest guns, the the Executive took a while to react.
Meanwhile, these terrorists were calling to lynch Pence.

I think as well, there is a big difference between violence by a mob, and a law which stipulates the loss of your freedoms from committing a crime.

The police veritably had larger guns than the rioters, they (or at least some of them) refused to use them, they where able to buy enough time for those inside at risk to get away.

And that doesn’t change the fact that this is history and to say otherwise is dumb.

A trumpet scrapped Trump on the back of a Manatee.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 631176002/

The Black Forrest wrote:A trumpet scrapped Trump on the back of a Manatee.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 631176002/

That’s terrible

The Black Forrest wrote:A trumpet scrapped Trump on the back of a Manatee.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 631176002/

terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE patterns of thought and behavior started and encouraged by trump

The Black Forrest wrote:A trumpet scrapped Trump on the back of a Manatee.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 631176002/

Abusing animals to own the libs. Wow team Trump, never failing to exceed my expectations by stooping EVEN LOWER than I originally expected.

The NCNSA wrote:Congratulations, you have elected a president who is basically gonna be a puppet leader run by psychos like Pelosi and Harris. Basic biology will be abolished, medicare-for-all will be established, our income tax will skyrocket, and speech will be suppressed.
I'll be damned if Biden actually has a will.

So Pelosi and Harris can manipulate our genes to the point of "abolishing basic biology", implement universal healthcare, increase taxes on the rich to fund social programs, and deplatform domestic terrorists and insurrectionists?

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Picairn wrote:

The NCNSA wrote:Congratulations, you have elected a president who is basically gonna be a puppet leader run by psychos like Pelosi and Harris. Basic biology will be abolished, medicare-for-all will be established, our income tax will skyrocket, and speech will be suppressed.
I'll be damned if Biden actually has a will.

So Pelosi and Harris can manipulate our genes to the point of "abolishing basic biology", implement universal healthcare, increase taxes on the rich to fund social programs, and deplatform domestic terrorists and insurrectionists?

Don't threaten me with a good time.

As so many others have said, I wish they were that cool.

Neutraligon wrote:Earlier people were taking issue with private companies being able to ban people from their platforms. Seems to me one of the answers to this is to have the US government set up a platform, that would make it subject to the first amendment. Of course, there are other issues that would come with this, but it would fix that one issue.

\
What is fascinating is a few of those people would argue a private business has the right to deny services.

Goverment provided service won’t work. The trumpets have a thing about the deep state. I don’t see them giving that up.

Picairn wrote:

The NCNSA wrote:Congratulations, you have elected a president who is basically gonna be a puppet leader run by psychos like Pelosi and Harris. Basic biology will be abolished, medicare-for-all will be established, our income tax will skyrocket, and speech will be suppressed.
I'll be damned if Biden actually has a will.

So Pelosi and Harris can manipulate our genes to the point of "abolishing basic biology", implement universal healthcare, increase taxes on the rich to fund social programs, and deplatform domestic terrorists and insurrectionists?

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Oh God. Another lib who only thinks about himself or herself.
Y'all think that your universal healthcare is free? But of course, if you guys are in the lower income bracket, you would know nothing about paying taxes. That your feelings are more important than basic mammalian biology?
Facts don't care about your feelings. Your healthcare would raise marginal tax rates to at least 50%. In other words, half of your salary would go to sleazebags who do nothing all day and wait for big daddy government to pay their bills. That is no way to live. Life isn't about finding a daddy to pay your bills for you, its about bettering yourself over time. Don't wait for somebody else to pick up your slack. It's the same with social programs. Don't force hard-working Americans to give up their hard-earned money to feed bozos who only play and don't work.
I couldn't give two hoots and a hell if you prefer to cut yourself up, change your biology, just to satisfy your mental needs. Just don't force the normal people to, by law, recognize you based on your personal feelings. Also, gene editing is far off, and if you think the government forcing scientists to research gene editing technology would be faster than a private industry motivated by wealth, you're completely wrong. Monetary incentive is much more effective than government force. There's a reason as to why basically all socialist countries have collapsed or are on the brink of collapsing.
Oh, and perhaps when you mean domestic terrorists, you mean not only the alt-right, whom I despise, but Antifa, who have wreaked so much more havoc than the alt-right could even dream of.
Also, just because I believe gender ought not to be changed doesn't mean I won't respect your opinion and call you by your prefered pronoun, only if you try to get your opinion made into law.
Believe me, now that I'm editing this, this really makes me seem like a hardline alt-righter, but I promise, I don't condone violence or discrimination against trans or homo communities in anyway, and I also firmly believe that the disabled ought to be helped in society, and those who act like they're disabled just for the benefits and positive stigma should perhaps rethink their actions.