|
Lessail posted:no we'll talk about how this proves pp is an unsafe place and more regulations are needed to make them safe or they should be shut down This is a mental health problem, so say people like Mike Huckabee who have been really flippant about mental health in the past.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
I wasn't actually referring to American media or even the American people, but rather progressives and leftists. The focus is always on gun control, where even if the left got everything it could possibly want there, the effect would be rather limited since you'd still have a country full of pissed-off racists and bigots, just now they'd have a harder time getting a gun. You don't see much talk - anywhere - about restricting speech on public airwaves so that media organizations can't incite violence by appealing to most of the worst parts of human nature. Is that an even less realistic goal than gun control?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You don't see much talk - anywhere - about restricting speech on public airwaves so that media organizations can't incite violence by appealing to most of the worst parts of human nature. Is that an even less realistic goal than gun control? They're about the same
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
LiterallyTheWurst posted:Sorry to jump in on this conversation late, but I give IQ tests for a living. This test blows. It relies too heavily on the person's knowledge of math concepts and English. There are parts that aren't bad, but it honestly pisses me off that people are trying to make major decisions using this stuff. There are a lot of people with large discrepancies in their general abilities of intelligence (fluid reasoning, short term memory, etc.), that can rock deductive reasoning and come out in the low average range of a test because of memory issues, poor visual processing, etc. There have been major strides in reducing cultural bias since the tests of the 1990s, and this one is not reflective of that at all. To make you feel better no one cares about the Wonderlic test except really old white football fans that are obsessed with "playing the right way."
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I wasn't actually referring to American media or even the American people, but rather progressives and leftists. The focus is always on gun control, where even if the left got everything it could possibly want there, the effect would be rather limited since you'd still have a country full of pissed-off racists and bigots, just now they'd have a harder time getting a gun. Yes, why exactly are leftists not attacking the first admendment? A curious question...... Also remember we're living in a context where CNN mentions the fake PP video in their article about the shooting before mentioning the other threats and attacks against abortion providers this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, why exactly are leftists not attacking the first admendment? A curious question......
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Is there any chance that the response to this will be more along the lines of "we should stop allowing talk radio and Rupert Murdoch to fill American airwaves with hate speech" instead of the usual "time to talk about gun control for a month and then stop"? Kilroy posted:You don't see much talk - anywhere - about restricting speech on public airwaves so that media organizations can't incite violence by appealing to most of the worst parts of human nature. Is that an even less realistic goal than gun control? Hey guys! Maybe if we censor their speech, it'll make their ideas die. This plan always works out! No. The left won't have this conversation. Because-outside of a very small segment of college students-nobody actually wants to ban speech. The reason nobody is talking about restricting speech on public airwaves is that even those, like me, who loathe the O'Keefe, Murdoch and Chuck Johnson will be the first ones to grab the pitchforks and torches if this starts to gain momentum in congress. You want to push Twitter to pull the accounts of folks like floorshitter? I'm with you. You want to boycott anyone who advertises on Hannity? Go for it. You want to protest outside Hobby Lobby with the graphic crime scene photos from this event? I might think it's a tenuous connection, but go ahead. Exercise your rights. How do you think restricting the content of politically unpopular speech will work whenever the GOP does manage to take back the White House and have control in congress?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well I mean if you're going to bring up the first amendment with regard to television and radio, then you may as well start with a complaint that the government auctions off the radio spectrum in the first place (and limits who can put wires where), and how to expect the technology to even work at all if they stop doing that. National media have a government-enforced monopoly - nothing wrong if that comes with strings attached. The government can't make a law banned a political ideology it hates, or opinions it disagrees with from the public airwaves without violating the 1sr admendment. Hth Also, I think you're really confusing the term monopoly, because as popular as Rush is, he doesn't have one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
So, Hillary is the only presidential candidate who's seem to have said (Tweeted) anything about the PP shooting. Is the silence from others normal or is it odd nobody else has commented yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Seems like #alllivesmatter is actually making a difference since this armed white guy was taken alive after murdering a cop and two other people. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The government can't make a law banned a political ideology it hates, or opinions it disagrees with from the public airwaves without violating the 1sr admendment. Hth I'm not talking about e.g. Twitter, or probably even cable news actually. It think there is a government-enforced monopoly on cable, but it's not at a national level, anyway. I'm speaking specifically about broadcast television and radio, where the government says "okay you can broadcast at this frequency and no one else can." You're saying that that doesn't violate the first amendment, but that doing that and laying out restrictions about what you're allowed to broadcast does? I don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well, he's white, so he's a lone wolf or someone with a mental illness. There was a paper awhile back that compared Right Wing beliefs to mental illness. I'm not very comfortable with that for a lot of reasons, for example how the Soviets would declare a lot of dissidents mentally ill, to how long it takes for these people to start calling Liberalism a mental disorder. Not that it matters cause the conservative ex-cop Trump supporter I know is reading some book about how Liberalism is a mental disorder so he can "Understand us." He also thinks that because us liberals are so wide spread violence is going to be unavoidable to keep America America
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay so how about you start broadcasting a talk radio show on the same frequency as Limbaugh's show, and see how long you can keep that up. Afaik, that law exists to prevent public airwaves becoming am unusable clusterfuck. Anyone can get licensed to broadcast on an unused band, but it takes a certain amount of capital. They don't discriminate by message (generally)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay so how about you start broadcasting a talk radio show on the same frequency as Limbaugh's show, and see how long you can keep that up. Lol you don't understand radio very well. Just because there are licensed stations that broadcast Rush, it didn't prevent anyone from making liberal talk radio. they did, it sucked and no, I don't mean NPR. Having a transmission licenses for a frequency in a specific geographic area (+AM clear channels) is not a media monopoly. Even if this was the 1950s it would be a tetraarchy or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Boon posted:What's a good test system? The Wechsler series of tests are considered the gold standard for most people. Some say the woodcock-johnson is the best one, but I hate it. The best thing about that one is that you get to say woodcock-johnson a lot. I work with kids, and I love the KABC-II. It doesn't take many changes to test a kid who is nonverbal or an English language learner, so it is excellent for just about every kid out there. In these tests, you can assess short-term memory, working memory, processing speed, long-term storage and retrieval, knowledge, visual processing, fluid-reasoning, and some others. Don't get me wrong, IQ is an important number to have, but I'd much prefer to have a picture of someone's general abilities. For any of these tests, you have to be qualified to administer them. You can't even buy them if you don't have the right credentials. I think the other test (the one used by cops and football teams) is used because the requirements for interpretation and administration are lower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:There was a paper awhile back that compared Right Wing beliefs to mental illness. I'm not very comfortable with that for a lot of reasons, for example how the Soviets would declare a lot of dissidents mentally ill, to how long it takes for these people to start calling Liberalism a mental disorder. Not that it matters cause the conservative ex-cop Trump supporter I know is reading some book about how Liberalism is a mental disorder so he can "Understand us." He also thinks that because us liberals are so wide spread violence is going to be unavoidable to keep America America Using the shakiest possible interpretations of studies to show how the enemy is scientifically inferior is definitely a thing. Much like that study about how people who actively listen to radio news are pretty well-informed about current events while people who leave a news channel on TV when they're not really watching know next to nothing got spun as "FOX viewers are dumb, NPR viewers are geniuses!" never mind that it was equally true if the radio listener was on right-wing talk shows and the TV viewer was MSNBC or BBC or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay so how about you start broadcasting a talk radio show on the same frequency as Limbaugh's show, and see how long you can keep that up. Who gets to profit off the physical cable infrastructure in a given town has little to do with who gets to speak on a cable channel, all of which that aren't highly regional in nature are carried by hundreds of separate cable systems and usually one if not both satellite systems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Lol you don't understand radio very well. Just because there are licensed stations that broadcast Rush, it didn't prevent anyone from making liberal talk radio. they did, it sucked and no, I don't mean NPR. It's not like the Internet, or newspaper, where anyone can post on Twitter or make a Twitter clone, or get a printing press and pass out whatever idiotic nonsense he pleases. The nature of broadcast media is that the number of participants has to be very limited due to how the technology works, and if the government took the same approach to TV and radio that is does with other media, TV and radio wouldn't really work. So as I said, you try broadcasting on the same frequency as Rush Limbaugh, and see how far you get with that, and then tell me why forbidding you from making a talk radio show at all, isn't a violation of the first amendment, but restricting what people with a show say is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay so how about you start broadcasting a talk radio show on the same frequency as Limbaugh's show, and see how long you can keep that up. Oh shut the hell up this is basic First Amendment and broadcast jurisprudence and your lack of knowledge is appalling. Look up "viewpoint-based discrimination" in the context of the First Amendment. That's why restrictions on what you're allowed to broadcast are very suspect. The ban on broadcast of obscenity is borderline as hell to start with, and only possible because its arguably content-based, not viewpoint-based, and bans on broadcasting over someone else are content neutral and thus prima facie permissible. And there's no government monopoly on cable systems, national or local.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Who gets to profit off the physical cable infrastructure in a given town has little to do with who gets to speak on a cable channel, all of which that aren't highly regional in nature are carried by hundreds of separate cable systems and usually one if not both satellite systems. That's why I explicitly excluded it in my post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Yo Kilroy as a guy so frothing liberal I was sympathizing with Noam Chomsky (the poster, not the scientist) in the thread yesterday, holy poo poo you do not know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Uh, sure it prevented people from making liberal talk radio. It didn't prevent liberal talk radio from being made by someone, but certainly there was someone who wanted to start a liberal radio station but could not do it because he couldn't secure a license to broadcast. Radio licenses aren't required for getting liberal talk radio going, you just need to afford studios and syndication/feed equipment. The trouble you need to have interesting host or two who can actually work the radio crowd. There are plenty of radio stations out there who would happily carry so long as you paid them more than the pittance the radio infomercial people pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Okay so "for some reason" restricting who can do broadcast media in the first place is not a violation of the first amendment. But, restricting what people who the government allows to do broadcast media, can do with broadcast media, is a first amendment violation. And holy poo poo I don't know what I'm talking about because that seems a bit of an absurd contradiction to me. I guess I'll just never know, then. I did not mean for this to turn into a thing Kilroy fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ali Dukakis reports that her grandfather's upstairs freezer, basement freezer, and neighbors' freezer are now all full of turkey carcasses. Walter Mondale's freezers are all full of fish that his son catches in Alaska during the summer. He catches so much that his friends' freezers get filled as well. Maybe it's just a thing for failed democratic presidential candidates. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:Walter Mondale's freezers are all full of fish that his son catches in Alaska during the summer. He catches so much that his friends' freezers get filled as well. Maybe it's just a thing for all rich liberal grandpas idk
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay so "for some reason" restricting who can do broadcast media in the first place is not a violation of the first amendment. But, restricting what people who the government allows to do broadcast media, can do with broadcast media, is a first amendment violation. And holy poo poo I don't know what I'm talking about because that seems a bit of an absurd contradiction to me. If you wanted to learn, I would suggest reading the posts in reply to you. Several people took the time to explain the differences between licensing radio stations and banning Rush. It isn't "for some reason" but because they are vastly different things. Fining someone who tries to jam NPR isn't the same as banning ideological speech you dislike. In unrelated news, looks like the ban on soft money will get overturned: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77857 Post CU is that good or bad? I don't know anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
It serves a legitimate public interest to restrict who can broadcast using the least restrictive means available. If anyone could broadcast the airwaves would be useless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:Walter Mondale's freezers are all full of fish that his son catches in Alaska during the summer. He catches so much that his friends' freezers get filled as well. To be honest, I'd rather not know what's in John Kerry's freezers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Fining someone who tries to jam NPR isn't the same as banning ideological speech you dislike.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Joementum posted:To be honest, I'd rather not know what's in John Kerry's freezers. Flip flops, hundreds of pairs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Flip flops, hundreds of pairs. But whose?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well I mean if you're going to bring up the first amendment with regard to television and radio, then you may as well start with a complaint that the government auctions off the radio spectrum in the first place (and limits who can put wires where), and how to expect the technology to even work at all if they stop doing that. National media have a government-enforced monopoly - nothing wrong if that comes with strings attached. I personally believe that 'free speech' is something important to the survival of the republic and a healthy society in general, and that broadening the definition of hate speech & prosecuting it more aggressively would cost us far more than it would gain. That was a pretty common attitude among american progressives, I thought, but it doesn't seem to be any more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:you'd still have a country full of pissed-off racists and bigots, just now they'd have a harder time getting a gun. Seems like this would be a good policy outcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:To be honest, I'd rather not know what's in John Kerry's freezers. I'd read grocery store magazines about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Tangentially, here's an interesting article that I ran into a few weeks ago: How Democrats Suppress The Vote.quote:In the ongoing fight between Democrats and Republicans over election procedures like voter ID and early voting, the Democrats are supposedly the champions of higher turnout and reducing barriers to participation. But when it comes to scheduling off-cycle elections like those taking place today [Nov. 3rd], the Democratic Party is the champion of voter suppression...
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:I personally believe that 'free speech' is something important to the survival of the republic and a healthy society in general, and that broadening the definition of hate speech & prosecuting it more aggressively would cost us far more than it would gain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I actually never said we should ban ideological speech I dislike, and I don't think we should. I specifically mentioned hate speech and speech that incites violence. I mentioned Rupert Murdoch and talk radio, but it's not my fault if most hate speech is coming from right-wing sources instead of left-wing or centrist ones. How do you define hate speech? Also, inciting to violence generally isn't protected speech already. I think you might just have a much wider view than the law. I'm not sure if I can imagine effective ways to further weaken speech protection for "bad speech" without hurting protections for speech critical to public discourse. What kinds of speech, specifically (just saying "hate speech" is not specific), should we ban from public media in your opinion? Kilroy posted:I mostly agree, but I see a fundamental difference between some nut handing out pamphlets on a college campus or posting poo poo on Twitter or whatever, where I think we should aggressively protect all speech including hate speech, and broadcast media where the number of people who can have their speech heard in the first place is very limited due to the nature of the technology and the (necessary) government-granted monopolies. Do you think I have a government granted monopoly over the land under my house? My deed is arguably more of a monopoly than a broadcast license.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Looper posted:I'd read grocery store magazines about it They are called clips.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Seems like this would be a good policy outcome. Trabisnikof posted:What kinds of speech, specifically (just saying "hate speech" is not specific), should we ban from public media in your opinion? Trabisnikof posted:Do you think I have a government granted monopoly over the land under my house? My deed is arguably more of a monopoly than a broadcast license.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
I was going to apply to be a guard at PP here this spring  Nevermind then...
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:05
|
|
