Advertisement
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:24 am
by Tombradyonia » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:42 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:The regulations imposed on the internet are quite depressing. They're more or less the same in every developed country, making me think that each of them was basically inevitable. The internet is obviously a conduit for information, but information has power making it also an alternative power-structure to government and the media. It's also an industry sector, directly by all the infrastructure necessary to move such volumes of data, but also indirectly in enabling new forms of business. It's a fantasy to think governments would let such a thing grow in political and economic influence without regulation.
As I see it, we lost when government came for the pedos. OK we said, we're struggling to keep that child porn off our legitimate porn channels, we'll help you track them down and jail them. What we should have said is "it's a problem but we haven't given up solving it yet, we'll come to you when we need help". But we didn't, and child porn turned out to be the thin end of the wedge, right up to now and we are all complicit in government and the private sector trying to ban unacceptable opinions.
When private enterprise gave us the power of free information, free communication, and in fact free speech, they did so for no reason but to get our money. They're a huge industry now, but quite diversified so they won't stand up effectively to government. If they have the choice between bowing to new regulations or ceasing operations, they will almost all choose the option which makes them more money in the future.
When I first heard about Packet Radio I thought "what a neat idea, shame I don't have a CB rig". I regret that badly now. It could have been the grassroots alternative to internet AND mobile phones.
Anyway, on topic. Biden voted Yea to the Telecommunications Act 1996.
by Cisairse » Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:45 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:The regulations imposed on the internet are quite depressing. They're more or less the same in every developed country, making me think that each of them was basically inevitable. The internet is obviously a conduit for information, but information has power making it also an alternative power-structure to government and the media. It's also an industry sector, directly by all the infrastructure necessary to move such volumes of data, but also indirectly in enabling new forms of business. It's a fantasy to think governments would let such a thing grow in political and economic influence without regulation.
As I see it, we lost when government came for the pedos. OK we said, we're struggling to keep that child porn off our legitimate porn channels, we'll help you track them down and jail them. What we should have said is "it's a problem but we haven't given up solving it yet, we'll come to you when we need help". But we didn't, and child porn turned out to be the thin end of the wedge, right up to now and we are all complicit in government and the private sector trying to ban unacceptable opinions.
When private enterprise gave us the power of free information, free communication, and in fact free speech, they did so for no reason but to get our money. They're a huge industry now, but quite diversified so they won't stand up effectively to government. If they have the choice between bowing to new regulations or ceasing operations, they will almost all choose the option which makes them more money in the future.
When I first heard about Packet Radio I thought "what a neat idea, shame I don't have a CB rig". I regret that badly now. It could have been the grassroots alternative to internet AND mobile phones.
Anyway, on topic. Biden voted Yea to the Telecommunications Act 1996.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:11 am
Cisairse wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:The regulations imposed on the internet are quite depressing. They're more or less the same in every developed country, making me think that each of them was basically inevitable. The internet is obviously a conduit for information, but information has power making it also an alternative power-structure to government and the media. It's also an industry sector, directly by all the infrastructure necessary to move such volumes of data, but also indirectly in enabling new forms of business. It's a fantasy to think governments would let such a thing grow in political and economic influence without regulation.
As I see it, we lost when government came for the pedos. OK we said, we're struggling to keep that child porn off our legitimate porn channels, we'll help you track them down and jail them. What we should have said is "it's a problem but we haven't given up solving it yet, we'll come to you when we need help". But we didn't, and child porn turned out to be the thin end of the wedge, right up to now and we are all complicit in government and the private sector trying to ban unacceptable opinions.
When private enterprise gave us the power of free information, free communication, and in fact free speech, they did so for no reason but to get our money. They're a huge industry now, but quite diversified so they won't stand up effectively to government. If they have the choice between bowing to new regulations or ceasing operations, they will almost all choose the option which makes them more money in the future.
When I first heard about Packet Radio I thought "what a neat idea, shame I don't have a CB rig". I regret that badly now. It could have been the grassroots alternative to internet AND mobile phones.
Anyway, on topic. Biden voted Yea to the Telecommunications Act 1996.
Point of contention, I disagree fully with the idea that any tangible "we" were complicit in the wedge being struck. The government passes laws unilaterally; they don't ask for approval or even consent from those who elect them.
by US-SSR » Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:35 pm
by Mirjt » Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:20 am
by The Black Forrest » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:29 pm
Mirjt wrote:I have been seeing this argument for why leftists and progressives whom don't like Biden would still benefit from voting for him anyway.
The general perspective for many leftists is that they lose no matter who wins, Biden or Trump, even if one may be marginally better than the other. The argument goes against that perspective by saying that when you have two candidates that you dislike, you should help to elect the one you would rather fight. If Trump wins, leftists will have a hard time fighting against his shameless, self-glorifying, cult-like, existential threat level, and undeniably fascist administration and winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Biden on the other hand made some concessions, as inadequate and patronizing and pathetic as they were, to the left and has shown that he will bend to pressure if it is strong enough. This means we will be able to better fight Biden throughout Biden's entire administration than we would be able to fight Trump.
An example of a concession Biden recently made is he moved his plan for total decarbonization and zero net emissions from 2050 to 2035 (which is in line with the admittedly inadequate Paris Climate Accords) and while progressives on Biden's joint unity task force would have preferred a larger concession (we really should be trying to finish decarbonization and zero net emissions sometime in the 2020s), this is a good start, we can pressure Biden for more concessions once he is in office (I really wish we could have the immediate and unconditional nationalization of the entire fossil fuel industry, an complete moratorium on all fossil fuel profits, and an full cessation of offshore drilling).
The idea that if the Democrats believe we will always vote for them because they are the lesser evil and so they have no incentive to actually put forward candidates and policies we actually like, is true, but only if voting is our only means of political action, however in reality we have petitions and protests and strikes and so on, so we can pressure our politicians. If Biden wanted to ease concerns among progressives, a good way to do that would be to have at least a semi-progressive voice like Elizabeth Warren (whom many progressives and leftists are still angry with) to serve as our voice in his administration (I also think Elizabeth Warren is the only semi-progressive woman who would even take the job). We must remember however that we have to keep fighting, we must find ways to make our protests larger and even more noticeable, it must be completely impossible to ignore our demands.
All that said, I think that is a well made leftist case for voting for Joe Biden. However, I am still leaning towards Howie Hawkins because I have both the fortune and misfortune of living in a safe blue state (Maryland) and my state's 10 electoral votes are going to go to Biden no matter what, but if the Green Party and Socialist Party candidate were to get a decent amount of the vote in Maryland, it may scare our senators and representatives to the U.S. Congress, as well as our state and local politicians to make some effort to appeal to leftists and progressives.
by Mirjt » Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:13 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Mirjt wrote:I have been seeing this argument for why leftists and progressives whom don't like Biden would still benefit from voting for him anyway.
The general perspective for many leftists is that they lose no matter who wins, Biden or Trump, even if one may be marginally better than the other. The argument goes against that perspective by saying that when you have two candidates that you dislike, you should help to elect the one you would rather fight. If Trump wins, leftists will have a hard time fighting against his shameless, self-glorifying, cult-like, existential threat level, and undeniably fascist administration and winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Biden on the other hand made some concessions, as inadequate and patronizing and pathetic as they were, to the left and has shown that he will bend to pressure if it is strong enough. This means we will be able to better fight Biden throughout Biden's entire administration than we would be able to fight Trump.
An example of a concession Biden recently made is he moved his plan for total decarbonization and zero net emissions from 2050 to 2035 (which is in line with the admittedly inadequate Paris Climate Accords) and while progressives on Biden's joint unity task force would have preferred a larger concession (we really should be trying to finish decarbonization and zero net emissions sometime in the 2020s), this is a good start, we can pressure Biden for more concessions once he is in office (I really wish we could have the immediate and unconditional nationalization of the entire fossil fuel industry, an complete moratorium on all fossil fuel profits, and an full cessation of offshore drilling).
The idea that if the Democrats believe we will always vote for them because they are the lesser evil and so they have no incentive to actually put forward candidates and policies we actually like, is true, but only if voting is our only means of political action, however in reality we have petitions and protests and strikes and so on, so we can pressure our politicians. If Biden wanted to ease concerns among progressives, a good way to do that would be to have at least a semi-progressive voice like Elizabeth Warren (whom many progressives and leftists are still angry with) to serve as our voice in his administration (I also think Elizabeth Warren is the only semi-progressive woman who would even take the job). We must remember however that we have to keep fighting, we must find ways to make our protests larger and even more noticeable, it must be completely impossible to ignore our demands.
All that said, I think that is a well made leftist case for voting for Joe Biden. However, I am still leaning towards Howie Hawkins because I have both the fortune and misfortune of living in a safe blue state (Maryland) and my state's 10 electoral votes are going to go to Biden no matter what, but if the Green Party and Socialist Party candidate were to get a decent amount of the vote in Maryland, it may scare our senators and representatives to the U.S. Congress, as well as our state and local politicians to make some effort to appeal to leftists and progressives.
The Black Forrest wrote:How are you defining victory and loss?
The Black Forrest wrote:Biden and Trump are the most likely people going to win. Howie and the rest? Really don’t have a hope in hell and the argument of if only people blah blah blah is nice but not really a valid measurement. It’s a what if.
The Black Forrest wrote:Trump is a disaster on many fronts.
The Black Forrest wrote:Is Biden the path to nirvana? Oh hell no. Senator Credit card has his own faults.
Is he a noticeable improvement over Trump? Oh hell yes. Even for the hard core leftests and progressives; at least Biden is listening to the wants and has adopted a few. Will he deliver? I can’t say. He will at least do more then Trump on that front. At worst you are looking at a half-hearted attempt versus talk and no movement or outright disparage.
The Black Forrest wrote:Trump is the disease which must be treated. Howie, etc. just can’t do it.
Is it worth four more years of Trump just to say “you should have voted for *whoever*?”
Anyway.......
by Nazis in Space » Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:27 am
by Mirjt » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:50 am
Nazis in Space wrote:I legitimately do not understand how your parents raised you for you to believe that calling people a disease will make them more amiable to your wishes. It's like shouting 'Hey! Fuckingniggerslow information voters!' and expecting to be voted into the NAACP board of directors.
That's really the basic (and hilarious) failure of the far left: They were never socialised. It's all me me me me me, also me. Hence the hilarious demand 'College forgiveness for people earning less than 125 k per year isn't enough! All college debt must be forgiven!'
Because as we all know, society's most needy are people earning more than 125 k per annum.
(This would, of couse, be financed through taxes. Literally a wealth transfer from people earning less than 125 k/year to people earning more than that. Socialism ho!)
Also, please don't call a literally non-binding, feel-good resolution 'Radical and extreme' climate action.
by Slavakino » Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:31 pm
by Mirjt » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:28 pm
Slavakino wrote:If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard
by Slavakino » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:35 pm
by An-Tanwir » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:37 pm
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:41 pm
by Shanghai industrial complex » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:47 pm
by Mirjt » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:52 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Mirjt wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard was in my top 5, the others were Sanders, Warren, Yang, and Castro.
Mostly men. Which isn't wrong, it's fair to say that most qualified candidates are men, the top 5 could contain just one woman without that being unrepresentative ... it's not Americans in general, but qualified Democratic Americans, Biden has to choose from.
But this is why I think it was a mistake to announce it would be a woman and then draw the process out so long. To some people it will give the impression that Biden's choice is hard not because he's giving it an awful lot of thought ... but that there AREN'T any suitable women.
And thus, whoever he does pick will be assumed Second Best to some unspecified man. Which is exactly what opponents of Affirmative Action will keep going on about. That hypothetical "good male Democrat" whose place the VP "took". That stone around her neck, the second best, might still be there in four years.
It could have been avoided by not announcing early, that it would be a woman. Or by choosing promptly after making that announcement. In my opinion Biden has made a mistake.
by New haven america » Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:52 am
Nazis in Space wrote:I legitimately do not understand how your parents raised you for you to believe that calling people a disease will make them more amiable to your wishes. It's like shouting 'Hey! Fuckingniggerslow information voters!' and expecting to be voted into the NAACP board of directors.
That's really the basic (and hilarious) failure of the far left: They were never socialised. It's all me me me me me, also me. Hence the hilarious demand 'College forgiveness for people earning less than 125 k per year isn't enough! All college debt must be forgiven!'
Because as we all know, society's most needy are people earning more than 125 k per annum.
(This would, of couse, be financed through taxes. Literally a wealth transfer from people earning less than 125 k/year to people earning more than that. Socialism ho!)
Also, please don't call a literally non-binding, feel-good resolution 'Radical and extreme' climate action.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:50 am
Mirjt wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Mostly men. Which isn't wrong, it's fair to say that most qualified candidates are men, the top 5 could contain just one woman without that being unrepresentative ... it's not Americans in general, but qualified Democratic Americans, Biden has to choose from.
But this is why I think it was a mistake to announce it would be a woman and then draw the process out so long. To some people it will give the impression that Biden's choice is hard not because he's giving it an awful lot of thought ... but that there AREN'T any suitable women.
And thus, whoever he does pick will be assumed Second Best to some unspecified man. Which is exactly what opponents of Affirmative Action will keep going on about. That hypothetical "good male Democrat" whose place the VP "took". That stone around her neck, the second best, might still be there in four years.
It could have been avoided by not announcing early, that it would be a woman. Or by choosing promptly after making that announcement. In my opinion Biden has made a mistake.
To be fair only 6 out of the 29 "major" candidates in the Democratic Primaries were women (Warren, Gabbard, Harris, Williamson, Klobuchar, Gillibrand).
I do agree with you that Biden botched his Vice-Presidential selection process and gave ammunition to misogynistic ways of thinking, however I get the feeling that sexism would enter the picture one way or another,
and that thought makes me really sad (I have been feeling very depressed about the state of the world and the state of the U.S. lately).
by Thermodolia » Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:48 am
New haven america wrote:Nazis in Space wrote:I legitimately do not understand how your parents raised you for you to believe that calling people a disease will make them more amiable to your wishes. It's like shouting 'Hey! Fuckingniggerslow information voters!' and expecting to be voted into the NAACP board of directors.
That's really the basic (and hilarious) failure of the far left: They were never socialised. It's all me me me me me, also me. Hence the hilarious demand 'College forgiveness for people earning less than 125 k per year isn't enough! All college debt must be forgiven!'
Because as we all know, society's most needy are people earning more than 125 k per annum.
(This would, of couse, be financed through taxes. Literally a wealth transfer from people earning less than 125 k/year to people earning more than that. Socialism ho!)
Also, please don't call a literally non-binding, feel-good resolution 'Radical and extreme' climate action.
Can't tell if really good sarcasm or actual belief.
by Elwher » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:09 am
Slavakino wrote:If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard
by Pigeonstan » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:11 am
by Asle Leopolka » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:39 am
Slavakino wrote:If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard
by Alcala-Cordel » Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:34 am
by Farnhamia » Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:39 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Butuni, Infected Mushroom, Roman Khilafa Al Cordoba, Tungstan
Advertisement