Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Well I'm sorry that I can't advertise ClownShowFuckbois.wordpress.com, where I documented all of the Republican politicians that have not so much come out of the closet as crashed through it in a semi. 

Share this post


Link to post

'Progressives' are more offended by words than actions. E.g. The Trump regime is dropping more bombs than Obama and Bush did, but progressives tend to ignore that and choose instead to whine about his foul mouth and rude manners, dare he offend someone. As if saying naughty words and being rude actually causes any measurable harm in the world, unlike, you know, dropping bombs & mass murdering people.
 

Saying naughty words = bad.
Dropping bombs on strangers on the other side of the world = meh.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

'Progressives' are more offended by words than actions. E.g. The Trump regime is dropping more bombs than Obama and Bush did, but progressives tend to ignore that and choose instead to whine about his foul mouth and rude manners, dare he offend someone. As if saying naughty words and being rude actually causes any measurable harm in the world, unlike, you know, dropping bombs & mass murdering people.

 

Saying naughty words = bad.

Dropping bombs on strangers on the other side of the world = meh.

Maybe it's because progressives don't know bombs are being dropped because media only seem to report on Trump's foul demeanor. This is hardly the fault of the public who literally have jobs and lives to attend to.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Good riddance.

 

Have fun without a platform or your kids, dickface. 

I can't wait until big tech and telecom companies no platform every progressive and critical voice on earth until it's just one whole capitalist circle jerk on the internet. It's gonna be great I love 1984

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So are guns but its in the second(should be the first tho amirite) amendment.

Share this post


Link to post

Good riddance.

 

Have fun without a platform or your kids, dickface. 

So you advocate for an individual/organization being silenced instead of simply ignoring them. You don't have to like the guy, but like you and everyone else they have the same rights as you.

 

And before the argument of "but they're a private company" comes up, I'm going to go ahead and say yes, they are a private company. But how do you determine how big a private company can be? Facebook, Google, Apple, and Spotify colluded on the same day to deplatform Alex Jones for allegedly saying something about Sandy Hook months prior. If that's they're reason to terminate his account and remove his podcasts, why didn't these tech companies act sooner?

 

These companies are so big, they essentially hold a monopoly by this point. People should have every right to voice their opinions without worrying about being censored by someone because it hurts their feelings. If you don't like what someone is saying, you ignore them, keep them off of your recommendations list, etc. Just because a person doesn't like what another person is saying, does not mean it's justified to shut that other person down.

 

From Evely Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Infowars is the canary in the coal mine. I'm not saying Alex Jones isn't crazy, abrasive , or divisive. He is. But it's naive to think he will be the last person banned.And it's absurd that a monopoly be considered a private business. It's like if Comcast or At&t could ban people IMO.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not that I'm for a monopoly on media/Internet/anything) but some group of huge corporations(possibly sharing board members{that can happen right?]) decided to boot Alex off their platforms at the same time seems fair play. Hes not banned from the Internet, he can duckduckgo anything he pleases. His website is up he should use some of that money from selling lead supplements to figure out a way to stream from his site which have ads hardcoaded into it as if anyone on there doesn't already know where they are. He's in internet exile and relied on someone else's platform to be heard. He can either build his own platform or wallow in the wreckage of a bygone era.

Share this post


Link to post

Infowars is the canary in the coal mine. I'm not saying Alex Jones isn't crazy, abrasive , or divisive. He is. But it's naive to think he will be the last person banned.And it's absurd that a monopoly be considered a private business. It's like if Comcast or At&t could ban people IMO.

Inb4 brain damaged liberals and centrists say 'it's just a private company dude. Don't like it don't use their service.'

 

You can't opt out of a service that is a literal monopoly and is in bed with government to begin with.

 

Same with twitter, fb etc. The more popular the platform is, the more in line you have to be with the dominant silicon valley culture/agenda which is pro big business.

 

You are essentially given a trade off. You can use a platform with a larger audience but without the liberty of spreading radical ideas, or use an obscure service with no audience and all the freedom in the world to say what you want.

 

Either way, the internet is still a bottleneck and that's what net neutrality was all about. Ironically the very thing that Alex Jones attacked lmfao.

Share this post


Link to post

I find it both peculiar and interesting that modern day 'intellectuals' and political commentators like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Lauren Southern, who are all rabidly 'anti-Islam' and 'anti-extremist', conveniently ignore the US government's pivotal role in directly funding and backing Islamic extremists, dating all the way back to the 70's.

 

I believe many of these modern-day 'alternative', conservative mouthpieces to be ignorant at best, controlled opposition at worst.

 



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

 

Share this post


Link to post

Either way, the internet is still a bottleneck and that's what net neutrality was all about. Ironically the very thing that Alex Jones attacked lmfao.

Net Neutrality was targeted towards ISPs from throttling websites like Netflix because they take up much more data than someone writing a blog or looking up the weather. Where Net Neutrality targeted ISPs, it doesn't target Google, Youtube, Facebook, etc. where they cover up what you're looking for, terminating people whether or not they violate their ToS off the bat (Twitter's known for this), and more in favor of one side of the political spectrum (which in most cases the left) instead of staying in the middle and treating everybody neutral.

 

So no, Net Neutrality to me is nothing but a farce. Just like the Affordable Health Care Act, the name is misleading.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

So you advocate for an individual/organization being silenced instead of simply ignoring them. You don't have to like the guy, but like you and everyone else they have the same rights as you.

Using specific websites is not a "right". People want to spew dangerous, baseless rhetoric, they can go to Voat. 

 

And before the argument of "but they're a private company" comes up, I'm going to go ahead and say yes, they are a private company. But how do you determine how big a private company can be? Facebook, Google, Apple, and Spotify colluded on the same day to deplatform Alex Jones for allegedly saying something about Sandy Hook months prior. If that's they're reason to terminate his account and remove his podcasts, why didn't these tech companies act sooner?

Because they were weighing the money that he brings to their websites vs. the negative press he attracts for being a detriment to the human race. Almost like big corporations are soulless, amoral money machines or something. 

 

These companies are so big, they essentially hold a monopoly by this point. People should have every right to voice their opinions without worrying about being censored by someone because it hurts their feelings. If you don't like what someone is saying, you ignore them, keep them off of your recommendations list, etc. Just because a person doesn't like what another person is saying, does not mean it's justified to shut that other person down.

 

Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook let literal Russian propaganda outfits operate on their platform, don't give me this horse shit about leftists being the Orwellian ones. 

 

Also fucking lol and a half @ you defending Alex Jones on the issue of free speech, but then tearing down net neutrality when that kicks the door in for ISPs - you know, big-ass telecom corporations - to start censoring content they don't like. You're right, websites are evil but telecom companies are angels. 

 

One example is someone being forced off a section of the internet, the other is someone being forced off the internet entirely. They're not the same. If the "monopoly of thought" on the biggest websites on the planet is that pushing baseless lies that end up with someone trying to free nonexistent children with an assault rifle from the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement is a bad thing, then oh-the-fuck well. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Using specific websites is not a "right". People want to spew dangerous, baseless rhetoric, they can go to Voat. 

 

So where do you stand when people like The Young Turks, Antifa, and all of those left leaners are still on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter not being terminated for obvious violations of ToS, and violence? No matter what political stance someone holds it's the companies job to treat everyone fairly and equally. And let's face it, they're not.

 

 

 

Because they were weighing the money that he brings to their websites vs. the negative press he attracts for being a detriment to the human race. Almost like big corporations are soulless, amoral money machines or something. 

 

Enforcing ToS, or making money and then enforcing ToS months later. Your pick.

 

 

Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook let literal Russian propaganda outfits operate on their platform, don't give me this horse shit about leftists being the Orwellian ones. 

 

 

I don't have accounts for either of those websites. I left Facebook and Twitter because how far left it has become. And because of that, whatever I say is not going to get out as far if not at all. Reddit I've never signed up for. But if anything I guess that explains where the communist protesters are coming from. However, I only mentioned the left because they are the most vocal ones.

 

 

 

 

Also fucking lol and a half @ you defending Alex Jones on the issue of free speech, but then tearing down net neutrality when that kicks the door in for ISPs - you know, big-ass telecom corporations - to start censoring content they don't like. You're right, websites are evil but telecom companies are angels. 

 

I'm tearing down Net Neutrality when it's not truly Net Neutrality. So ISPs are being regulated to treat every website and internet based service equally, but when companies like Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. aren't told to treat every individual/organization easily, they'll keep doing what they are currently doing now.

 

 

 

One example is someone being forced off a section of the internet, the other is someone being forced off the internet entirely. They're not the same. If the "monopoly of thought" on the biggest websites on the planet is that pushing baseless lies that end up with someone trying to free nonexistent children with an assault rifle from the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement is a bad thing, then oh-the-fuck well. 

 

You're right, you're not being forced off the internet entirely. Just on a smaller platform where they can be barely heard or not heard at all. And you want to go on Pizzagate, ok, what about MSM taking a baseless idea of children being "taken" away from their "parents" at the border? Oh wait, those parents trying to cross the border illegally with the kid(s) are either terrible parents, or happen to be the child's rapist. Mind you, I didn't say all of them. But at the same time, they should be coming in the country legally.

Share this post


Link to post

hello fellow internet contributors, how are our tin foil hats leaning today?

Share this post


Link to post

why do people talk about net neutrality if they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. its a good thing, I promise, just because ben shapiro said its bad doesnt really mean its bad. he doesnt have a degree in coax cables so he cant talk about it anyway

Share this post


Link to post

Net Neutrality was targeted towards ISPs from throttling websites like Netflix because they take up much more data than someone writing a blog or looking up the weather. 

Yes this is bad.

 

 

Where Net Neutrality targeted ISPs, it doesn't target Google, Youtube, Facebook, etc. 

Google, Youtube, Facebook all have censorship. Destroying net neutrality, throttling services and creating paywalls creates more censorship because the poor will naturally choose the internet package with google/fb/youtube because it's cheapest. You know those platforms you don't like for being biased.

 

 

 where they cover up what you're looking for, terminating people whether or not they violate their ToS off the bat (Twitter's known for this)

 

 

So what? How does creating an extra layer of tyranny and favoritism at the ISP level fix this if not make it worse?

 

 

 more in favor of one side of the political spectrum (which in most cases the left) instead of staying in the middle and treating everybody neutral.

 

 

I didn't know big tech and mega capitalists favour leftists who want to dismantle them. Why would they prefer voices who are hostile to them? Seems silly.

 

 

 

So no, Net Neutrality to me is nothing but a farce. Just like the Affordable Health Care Act, the name is misleading.

Oh god. Divvying up the ISP market to have packages makes the censorship worse lol. How can you care about google/fb censorship and then advocate for a policy that destroys the audience of alternative platforms for radical voices. Wages are declining, workers aren't going to buy the premium internet package when their pay packet is shrinking. They will choose the google/fb/yt package which is the one that preaches the big tech business ideology. Big tech business ideology is not leftist in any shape or form. Gay rainbow capitalism sponsored by big banks is not leftist.

Share this post


Link to post

why do people talk about net neutrality if they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. its a good thing, I promise, just because ben shapiro said its bad doesnt really mean its bad. he doesnt have a degree in coax cables so he cant talk about it anyway

He says it's bad because the people who pay him are paid by the fat ISPs to say it is bad.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh god. Divvying up the ISP market to have packages makes the censorship worse lol. How can you care about google/fb censorship and then advocate for a policy that destroys the audience of alternative platforms for radical voices. Wages are declining, workers aren't going to buy the premium internet package when their pay packet is shrinking. They will choose the google/fb/yt package which is the one that preaches the big tech business ideology. Big tech business ideology is not leftist in any shape or form. Gay rainbow capitalism sponsored by big banks is not leftist.

Where did I say I favor ISPs blocking or throttle websites? Because I never said that. How is it fair to ISPs being regulated when Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are free to terminate anyone for arbitrary reasons?

 

To be as clear as I can be, If Net Neutrality was meant to be free and open to everyone, how come ISPs are regulated but websites aren't? I'm not in favor of ISPs over websites because that would be stupidly hypocritical.

 

And wages are declining? Care to explain how?

Share this post


Link to post

why do people talk about net neutrality if they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. its a good thing, I promise, just because ben shapiro said its bad doesnt really mean its bad. he doesnt have a degree in coax cables so he cant talk about it anyway

 

The fact that you think FUCKING BEN SHAPIRO speaks for or is any way representative of what non-leftists actually believe or want truly says it all. Why do I even open this thread? I know I shouldn't expect much out of a political thread in the OT section of a site dedicated to a dying game - especially one where half the members can barely structure a sentence - but holy shit.

 

Shapiro is a TV stooge that Communist News Network and other worthless media/propaganda outlets bring in whenever they feel like they need a "conservative" voice in their panel under some wink-wink guise of making themselves appear unbiased (not that they're fooling anyone). He's a paid pinata for the Don Lemons of the world to beat up on. He is to the right what Greenskull is to the Halo community.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.