|
SourKraut posted:Hopefully you have pointed out to her that the "great private plan" through your dad is still socialized medicine, it's just less effective socialized medicine because a for-profit corporation is skimming a lot off the top for profit. She knows that but she is genuinely afraid to die. Honestly even the best healthcare in the world would have rationed her care and she'd have died 15 years ago. She's very lucky. My Dad's company spends about 35k/person for their non deductible plan for all their employees.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
Blindeye posted:I think there is a certain latent...something that gets triggered either by conservative news or social media. I can see it. I watch and listen to my fair share of FOX and talk radio - even started a thread about it - but it never dug its way into my head and hosed with my thinking. I listened to Rush Limbaugh every day for a while when he first started out because I honest to god thought it was a parody and was satire. At the time and through that lens I thought it was funny. I wonder sometimes how much cross over there is each way? Like, do more liberals or even centrists watch RWM than conservatives do CNN or MSNBC? I know a lot of left thinking people like to hate watch/listen to stuff like Hannity and several websites monitor that poo poo and post about it. I'd bet even money that there are more people like me/us that watch RWM than there are die hard conservatives who ever check out CNN. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Sep 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
has the 5th just making poo poo up been posted here yet? https://twitter.com/mattbc/status/1570900342845636608 https://twitter.com/mattbc/status/1570908733982806018 i sure do wish the most prominent and influential institutions of the american legal system didnt like to constantly just make poo poo up! e: link to the opinion https://twitter.com/KinseyAndrew/status/1570877169815138305
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
cgeq posted:Embarrassment, perhaps? Just challenging them in public can be embarrassing for them. Yeah, bully them. It works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:has the 5th just making poo poo up been posted here yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
Wait, so if I send in a book manuscript to Random House, are they now legally obligated to publish it? EDIT: Wait, are graffiti artists allowed to tag the whole side of a McDonalds? EDIT #2: Wait, am I allowed to perform the entirety of the play Equus in an HR Block? Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Sep 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Wait, so if I send in a book manuscript to Random House, are they now legally obligated to publish it? By the logic of the courts, individuals who do not work for a business are allowed to enter businesses and strike. Anyway this is further evidence that the executive branch should outright reject the courts. If the courts can make up rules on the fly, let them enforce it. The executive branch should (and legally can) execute how they interpret laws rather than attempt to follow the nonsense of the courts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:
I guess if you incorporate as a business yes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 14:09
|
|
|
I think that there is no right to free speech when using a social media website, but I also think that you all have lost the plot if you think that the idea of free speech is a hateful right-wing concept. On SA there is a mistrust of corporations in general--the belief goes that they are not really accountable to the general public and so for that reason they cannot be trusted with holding a lot of influence over society. Why do we throw this idea out of the window when it comes to this particular subject? Like could you imagine people in the 1960's counterculture movement defending billion-dollar corporations' ability to censor and control speech on their media platforms? I feel this stance on this issue is totally backwards and uncharacteristic of non-authoritarian left-wing ideology. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:has the 5th just making poo poo up been posted here yet? The legal system has always felt like people making things up and this isn't any different. For example, a different set of rules for rich people, prosecutor and judicial discretion, upholding slavery and internment camps. The whole system, as designed, can be gamed. Companies can restrict their employee medical plan based on religious beliefs but can't censor users fits right in there. A while ago a lawyer friend of mine told me that to get into public defending and, to a lesser extent, prosecution, you really have to believe in the process. Maybe that wasn't true of con law lawyers and they are just learning it? The legal system has never been "what makes sense", "what is consistent", "what is fair" or even "what can be reasoned". It was always "what a judge says". It is the process we have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I think that there is no right to free speech when using a social media website, but I also think that you all have lost the plot if you think that the idea of free speech is a hateful right-wing concept. The solution to companies having too much power is to break them up, not torch the first amendment. We need anti-trust enforcement and interoperability regulations (open standards etc).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I think that there is no right to free speech when using a social media website, but I also think that you all have lost the plot if you think that the idea of free speech is a hateful right-wing concept. The first amendment is very clear (and I think most people are in agreement that) it applies restrictions to the government and nobody else. Billion dollar companies being too powerful has gently caress all to do with whether they have to host your speech (in the sense of literally online or even just you standing on their property) or not. The solution to "Facebook has a monopoly on my speech" is to break up Facebook, not force them to host any speech ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I think that there is no right to free speech when using a social media website, but I also think that you all have lost the plot if you think that the idea of free speech is a hateful right-wing concept. SA, with its abritraty moderation, doesn't exactly seem like a bastion of free speech, though. Do you think there should be no moderation of SA beyond legal requirements?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
It's the first sentence of my post. I think that there is no right to free speech when using a social media website.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The first amendment is very clear (and I think most people are in agreement that) it applies restrictions to the government and nobody else. It’s hard to get past the literal first word of the amendment without reading it but people manage somehow
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I think that there is no right to free speech when using a social media website, but I also think that you all have lost the plot if you think that the idea of free speech is a hateful right-wing concept. There has never been an obligation to spend your own resources to facilitate someone else's speech, on any person or corporation. This decision is a reversal of that- if someone wants to use your service for anything that could be considered speech, you are not allowed to decline. Do you not see the problems with that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
Look I'm not saying that people on privately-run websites should be able to say whatever they want. I'm saying that opposing the ruling seems contrary to anti-authoritarian left-wing ideology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
If it is then good, to hell with that part of the ideology. It’s more open to abuse than it is to positive outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Anti-authoritarians, well-known for wanting the authorities to force them to give people they dislike a platform.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Look I'm not saying that people on privately-run websites should be able to say whatever they want. I'm saying that opposing the ruling seems contrary to anti-authoritarian left-wing ideology. The ruling is bad and also has no basis in law, which is additionally bad. If the ruling was that every business was legally required to put a Che poster up and give out free copies of Das Capital, it would still be bad. KillHour fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Sep 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Look I'm not saying that people on privately-run websites should be able to say whatever they want. I'm saying that opposing the ruling seems contrary to anti-authoritarian left-wing ideology. I want the online spaces I visit to be pleasant and welcoming. Forcing these spaces to host hate speech, misinformation and other trash means I will be less happy there, so I dislike this ruling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
It's the tolerance paradox. You can't have tolerance if you allow loud intolerant people to drown out all other discussion. In order to have true free speech, you do need some level of censorship because without it Nazis just coopt and takeover any public forum that exists. You can't just go "well just debate or ignore them but let them speak", because doing either signal boosts their views and makes the forum hostile for everyone they are bigoted against. You can't have free and open discussion when posting anything good results in Nazis brigading you with death threats and tracking down your family. Now big tech does need to be broken up and internet moderaton fixed across the board, but eliminating all moderation doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Zeron posted:It's the tolerance paradox. You can't have tolerance if you allow loud intolerant people to drown out all other discussion. In order to have true free speech, you do need some level of censorship because without it Nazis just coopt and takeover any public forum that exists. You can't just go "well just debate or ignore them but let them speak", because doing either signal boosts their views and makes the forum hostile for everyone they are bigoted against. You can't have free and open discussion when posting anything good results in Nazis brigading you with death threats and tracking down your family. It's not even the tolerance paradox. A company is totally allowed to put up a sign that says "No Libs and especially no Socialists." The tolerance paradox only applies to places that are trying to be as welcoming as possible, which businesses are under no obligation to do. The main problem here is that everyone is glossing over the fact that businesses have gone from a "place you go for the sole purpose of buying poo poo" to "the only way for a lot of people to communicate and share ideas" and that's the problem. The Republicans are being obtuse in multiple ways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I'm saying that opposing the ruling seems contrary to anti-authoritarian left-wing ideology. No, not in any way. How would it? (and regardless, under left-wing ideologies, private entities could not have ownership of public squares, so...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Some of the issues: companies often choose to censor or mistreat marginalized groups (especially and particularly lgbtq+) and the left first and most, even if the people involved are being reasonable and saying provable facts. Hell, historians have had problems on FB, twitter and youtube because... Their systems of moderation are abuseable, be they AI, reports going to human moderators or copyright trolls. Finally, when a company says "this is the truth and anything else is misinformation" but it turns out that what they claimed is truth wasn't, but was merely government recommendation as happened multiple times during covid, they themselves are spreading (potentially harmful) misinformation. All of that is completely legal and backed up by case law in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The main problem here is that everyone is glossing over the fact that businesses have gone from a "place you go for the sole purpose of buying poo poo" to "the only way for a lot of people to communicate and share ideas" and that's the problem. Also the fact that, increasingly, "businesses" and especially big corporations ARE basically the government. Corporations are people my friend. So it gets sticky. People confuse what free speech and the first amendment really says and that's that it specifically limits the power of the government to impose censorship or establishing a religion, etc. Getting kicked off Twitter, FB or bounced from a restaurant isn't a violation of free speech, I don't believe. You can say whatever the gently caress you want but you're not free from consequences. I used to be a "let anyone say anything anywhere type" in my younger libertarian days back when the PMRC was a thing and recording artists were protesting the concept of censorship. But did 2 Live Crew and Ice T REALLY have their first amendment rights violated? Or are we looking at something else? I honestly don't know. The whole concept was basically born from the idea of establishing a free press, first and foremost, and I think there's a reason the founders made that #1 but we don't have a "press" anymore, really. We have the internet where essentially, everyone is a reporter of sorts and the "news" is driven by corporate advertising so again the lines are blurred. I wouldn't call SA's moderation "censorship" and without it (and the paywall) we'd basically be what Reddit is. Society has gone from very few people having a voice at all to everyone having a voice all at once in the span of a century or so and the end result is predictably noisy and difficult to parse, let alone legislate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
since you mentioned the glorious paywall, I think I would have an iota of Plank unit care more for freeze peaches people if they weren';t getting banned from largely free services. and then either making another account with the same email address or using a free email to make another free account. the solution here is to have a minor account creation fee and maybe even a generous microtransaction package for posting content.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
You are never going to persuade a right winger that their definition of “free speech” is wrong or misunderstood. Their definition of free speech is rooted in it’s practicality of achieving their goals, it’s not rooted in any sort of realism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:You are never going to persuade a right winger that their definition of “free speech” is wrong or misunderstood. Their definition of free speech is rooted in it’s practicality of achieving their goals, it’s not rooted in any sort of realism. This is true for any law, not just the first amendment. The ends justify the means. Liberals care more about decorum, rule of law, and “the system” than achieving any worthwhile goals on healthcare, immigration, economic disparity, etc. One can easily see this when folks call for the current Ruling Party to take a more forceful hand in accomplishing goals that benefit the poor. Fascists believe conservatism can’t fail, it can only be failed. They have greater resolve as a result. Liberals feel “the system” can’t fail, it can only be failed. This is why liberals fall nicely into the camp of fascist sympathizers at worse or useful idiots at best. Their resolve is to uphold the failed system rather than focus on their supposed end goals of helping the oppressed. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I think that there is no right to free speech when using a social media website, but I also think that you all have lost the plot if you think that the idea of free speech is a hateful right-wing concept. Turns out corporations have been muzzling left wing speech since the jump but were supposed to care when they start doing it to hatemonger45 asking for all the deviants to die?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:You are never going to persuade a right winger that their definition of “free speech” is wrong or misunderstood. Their definition of free speech is rooted in it’s practicality of achieving their goals, it’s not rooted in any sort of realism. This. Any GOP governor could start shutting down mosques and synagogues all over their state tomorrow and no conservative would say a peppe about freedom of religion, except for the kept sinecure morons at the waPo and the NYT, and even they would juat say "Ohh, this is deeply concerning, but, um, woke peril is worse." It has always been about tribal advancement and shutting down anyone who is not them. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/the-story-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-keeps-getting-more-surreal/ The crazy courts Mitch seeded all over the country are already basically reworking the 1st ammendment into "Hey, the in-group's freedom of speech totally includes shutting down anything it doesn't like, so suck it." And now the Supreme Court is ready to just pat them on the head and wink for the next 30 years minimum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
Gonna get a job at Hobby Lobby and say on their property that in the humble opinion of this lowly retail worker, abortion should be legal and free
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Liberals feel “the system” can’t fail, it can only be failed. This is why liberals fall nicely into the camp of fascist sympathizers at worse or useful idiots at best. Their resolve is to uphold the failed system rather than focus on their supposed end goals of helping the oppressed. I don't think this is true. Liberals believe any specific system can fail but that a system is nonetheless necessary, so they focus on incremental improvement from within the system. Republicans believe that if the government just went away, everything would be great so they don't really care about a system beyond being the ones in control of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I don't think this is true. Liberals believe any specific system can fail but that a system is nonetheless necessary, so they focus on incremental improvement from within the system. I'd correct that to 'but that the system under which they live is nonetheless necessary' you can look at the speed with which putting immigrants in concentration camps went from intolerable abomination under Trump to 'well, it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it' under Biden for an excellent example of the process at work. when the phenomenon was new to them, it was an alien monstrosity to be opposed. now it is enshrined in the system, and so the people saying no government that does such a thing is worthy of their support have gone from the sensible, middle-of-the-road opposition to Trump to a crazy left wing fringe not to be listened to. modern liberalism is about venerating institutions, modern conservatism is about venerating hierarchy, and as such one of their points of unconditional agreement is "the untermenschen must be removed from the country with all possible speed." the conservative supports it because it's getting rid of people he hates. the liberal doesnt like it, but is willing to support it rather than oppose it, because better that the system accomplishes a horrific goal cleanly than accomplish a good thing in a way that disrespects the process. what's the old shibboleth, 'you have to make some sacrifices to get things done?' it's a thing the system is getting done. and therefore, to a certain liberal frame of mind, opposing it constitutes a far greater danger to society than establishing as legal principle "the existence of immigrants constitutes a health risk to Real Americans" and calling it a day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Best as I can tell, there's no footage of it but Garland administered and spoke at a Citizenship Ceremony on Ellis Island yesterday:quote:Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Administers the Oath of Allegiance and Delivers Congratulatory Remarks at Ellis Island Ceremony in Celebration of Constitution Week and Citizenship Day
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1571167147849646081 In US/British news, Biden is in London right now for the Queen's funeral, but Liz Truss won't be meeting with him. They are still scheduled to meet at a UN General Assembly in New York on Wednesday, but it's still a big snub considering Truss is meeting with the Australian, New Zealand, Irish, & Canadian prime ministers and the Polish president today. Even if they are meeting in a few days consider that it is Biden's first presidential visit to her country under Truss's leadership and she cancelled their official meeting. In utterly unrelated news, it just came out that Truss's chief of staff has been interviewed by the FBI concerning a bribery case in Puerto Rico. The gist of it is that the chief of staff was a middle-man in for a Tory donor bribing one of the candidates for governor of Puerto Rico, so once elected that governor would get rid of an investigation into that donor's bank. The scheme fell apart, so now the chief of staff is tattling in exchange for immunity. Sorry about all the Twitter posts, but the article is paywalled. https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183835609534466 https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183839677923329 https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183843457044480 https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183847596761090 https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183851283644417
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:This is true for any law, not just the first amendment. The ends justify the means. not sure why this was worth a probe. He didn't even make it personal. It's not a new thing that when push comes to shove, liberals will side with the right over the left. Every time. The 'incrementalism' they live by is so inherent to their system that they fear anything that might speed up the process. Improving peoples lives in 5 years is bad when they could instead gradually improve them to the same point over 50.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:not sure why this was worth a probe. He didn't even make it personal. its always the liberals who side with the fascists against the left says person whose previous post was complaining the facists are taking a loss and he's definitely not sad about it but immediately complains nothing ever gets better because poor russia couldn't conquer ukraine (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:its always the liberals who side with the fascists against the left says person whose previous post was complaining the facists are taking a loss and he's definitely not sad about it but immediately complains nothing ever gets better because poor russia couldn't conquer ukraine When Russia invading Ukraine and committing genocide has an upside in potentially “making neoliberalism take a loss” it really puts the question to posting about how liberals are the ones who’ll side with fascists when push comes to shove.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
KillHour posted:Republicans believe that if the government just went away, everything would be great so they don't really care about a system beyond being the ones in control of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 20:02
|
|