What I did or didn't do is irrelevant to the questions I posed to you, which you still haven't answered. Try again: Do you think that's PC gone wild? Do we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots? — Benkei

On reddit there's a thread entitled 'free speech' and people visit that thread and post vile, violent, absurd, sweary, scary things to try and get them removed by the mods, so that then they can say "Ah, ha - I knew you didn't believe in free speech." Until, or unless you can show that there were credible threats emerging from Parler, I don't see any reason to shut it down. I think it unlikely, credible threats would be discussed on an internet notice board, and this is just people - either testing the limits of free speech, or blowing off steam. If there were credible threats, where are the arrests of these potential terrorists? No, this is closing down right wing spaces - in accord with the left wing, politically correct, cancel culture playbook.

Parler refugees — Banno

They also have other echo chambers and propaganda sites, like Gab (gab·com) and Turning Point USA (tpusa·com).
I'm sure their user-bases have gone up recently.
I think the former is hosted by Azure. The latter is transparently McCarthyism.
Anyway, seems likely at the moment that they'll find other (Presidential) candidates down the line.

Until, or unless you can show that there were credible threats emerging from Parler, I don't see any reason to shut it down. I think it unlikely, credible threats would be discussed on an internet notice board, and this is just people - either testing the limits of free speech, or blowing off steam. If there were credible threats, where are the arrests of these potential terrorists? No, this is closing down right wing spaces - in accord with the left wing, politically correct, cancel culture playbook. — counterpunch

You think it unlikely and yet it appears to have happened.

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20454504-eduard-florea-case

We'll probably see more of it over time now that Parler is working with the FBI to provide information on its users. It isn't known if people, who have been arrested through other methods of identification, have been users of Parler and what they posted there. Investigations take time, which answers your "where are the arrests? "; they're under way and not necessarily being identified through Parler data.

The idea that these people are just innocently testing the limits of free speech or blowing off steam is a curious interpretation of calling for assassinations and violence.

This is blowing off steam:

Jesus Fucking Christ I can't FUCKING UNDERSTAND why people can be so fucking dumb and stupid. All politicians should go to hell and fuck of and die.

This isn't:

On January xxx we need to start systematicly assasinating #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters, members of #nba #nfl #mlb # mainstreammedia anchors and correspondents. I already have a news worthy event planned.

The fact you can't or won't tell the difference worries me.

You should have read the case notes more carefully.

Page 3 - top, reads:

"although evidence gathered in this investigation to date indicates that Eduard Florea did not ultimately travel to Washington DC on that date"

This is just some idiot, spouting off on the internet, trying to stir up shit. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover he was actually a lefty. In the event, police busted his house and found ammunition he wasn't allowed to have because of a previous felony charge - but no weapons. This person is not a credible threat. He's a sad case. Probably mentally ill.

What do you think you have argued here - that Amazon and Apple should not respond to their customer's concerns? That there ought be some control on Apple and Amazon, so that folk can have free speech? But I thought there was this "invisible hand" that you said would make things work... after all, presumably Parler can get someone else to host it, if it is a decent player in the free market... — Banno

I think nearly everybody has a tendency to have an extremely short-term outlook these days (for lots of obvious reasons), but the so-called "invisible hand" could be considered karmic in nature. In any case, everything works out in the end one way or another.

It's hard to imagine the West would go from a several hundred year philosophical history of tolerance in nearly all things (particularly speech) to an intolerant fascist (corporatist) one almost overnight. The right to free speech was taught as the foundation of freedom as we know it in the U.S. .

I believe what the tech monopolies have done is furthered along the conversation for regulation because there must be enough people in power who understand that the pendulum doth swingest back, and when it does, retribution will most likely be the first order of the day.

There is no doubt that this came from the left and this will be its undoing.

I agree that the average forum member leans centre or left. With that said, why exactly is that a problem? Nobody is censoring discussion here. If you wanted to make a post about the failings of progressivism in the US or elsewhere, you're free to do so.

Except for the violence at the marches, and the rioting, and the arson, etc. — Book273

I am not a member of BLM, and haven't supported them. BUT... Hey, Book:

The rioting of last summer (following G Floyd's death) began less than a mile from where I live. I observed how it started. There was a mix of people demonstrating at the Third Precinct station at 6:30 pm. The mix was black, white, hispanic; mostly young people; some BLM signs and T-shirts, but not the majority. A lot of the graffiti, speeches, and yelling was hate-the-police stuff. The unorganized crowd of locals was winding itself up. Within two hours a small group (maybe 15) started breaking into the Third Precinct building and starting fires inside. Meanwhile, some fires were being started in nearby buildings. Much of this action was photographed, much of it streamed by Unicorn Video. The arsonists at work turned out to be white guys from outstate or suburban Minnesota. They were not members or associates of BLM.

By 11:00 p.m. there were a number of large fires burning around Minneapolis and lots of looting by locals. At 1:00 a.m. I observed several white people looting a Walgreens 3 blocks from my house, then the building was torched.

In the days that followed, BLM mounted several very large demonstrations and marches that were orderly and without violent acts. Yes there were arrests for curfew violations, blocking freeways, and the like. There was, I suspect, some looting by demonstrators after the late-night march had come to an end and participants had scattered.

Big demonstrations are usually composed of people on a continuum of volatility. Most of the people are in the middle (not very volatile) but there is usually a small portion that once aroused become reckless. This is true for any kind of demonstration.

A truly woke person realizes their pawnship and navigates within that role to peace, joy, and a fern garden with lots of moss and a little buddha statue at the end of the path that leads from the rock garden — frank

"truly woke" sounds very squishy and disgusting.

Corporate donors flee Republican Party following Capitol Hill riot, and it's only the beginning


Free enterprise is a marvellous thing. The invisible hand at work.

Tangentially from that:

I watch a number of markets (stocks, bonds, gold) daily just in the course of updating my daily financial records (my retirement account is invested in index funds of all three of those), and an interesting thing that I've noticed during the course of this year, where I've also been watching political news more closely than usual, is that the markets respond positively whenever there is news of financial relief or other generally good news for common people, and negatively when there is bad news about the same topics (e.g. stimulus bill talks fall through again).

It's almost as if the people with their actual money on the line, on average at least, realize that a healthy flourishing society is good for business.

See also: insurance companies raising rates in low-lying coastal areas as evidence for the reality of climate change. Just follow the money, because smart money isn't ideological, and ideologues and their money are (eventually, not soon enough) parted. (We just have to be careful that they're not allowed to take the rest of us down with them).

"truly woke" sounds very squishy and disgusting. — Bitter Crank

It probably sounds better if you're stoned

You seem to be opposed to seeing any problems with the idea of superiority, and my view of seeing people as being of equal worth and value. You do point to the evolutionary importance of superiority. — Jack Cummins

You haven't been answering my questions.

Do you think hatred and prejudice are something idle and avoidable? That they serve no practical purpose?

The fact is that not even bare survival is guaranteed for anyone. Even in first-world countries, the possibility of dying in poverty and homelessness is becoming more and more prominent.

However, I am wondering what system of society you are advocating, in terms of ranking according to certain measures of superiority. Would you be wishing to maintain the status quo or challenge power dynamics?

My point about superiority took place within a discussion about political correctness. However, all discussions gets broken up in this long thread. But, bearing in mind that the conversation took place originally in that context I am wondering what are your views on the importance of equality?

People aren't equal. It's a fact of life.
Why try to sugarcoat this with politically correct notions that do nothing but set vulnerable people up for failure?

I don't advocate any particular political or social system. I am opposed to the politically correct pretenses of equality which just add insult to injury.

This is not a scientific journal, — synthesis

Obviously you've never written for a scientific journal if you think adding a couple of references turns what we have here into anything like one.

Obviously you have access to the internet, so you can do your own research and counter arguments. — synthesis

That's just disingenuous laziness. Why would I trawl the internet for evidence-based counter-arguments if my interlocutor didn't go to such effort in the first place. All we end up with a a pointless list of some random people's opinions.

If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? — synthesis

We already have rules about quality and tone, both of which require some contextual line to be drawn. Such a requirement doesn't seem to have brought the site to it's knees yet. I don't see why the provision of references should be any more difficult to judge.

"I think Trump's a brilliant leader" doesn't require a reference (though maybe a lobotomy)

"

BLM used carefully edited cell phone footage to create a social media narrative to suggest that police were murdering black people — counterpunch

..does.

Is it really that hard to tell the difference?

Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth. — synthesis

No. No breakthrough requires that. Breakthroughs require careful and diligent hard work researching and checking, peer-reviewing, checking again, correcting mistakes, more checking... and then, finally maybe publishing. It pisses me off intently that after all that hard work someone claiming to be interested in the subject (whatever it is) can't even be bothered to type the question into a search engine to find out if anyone has done such painstaking work.

And then you launch right into some unfounded conspiracy theory it was a leftist and take him not being there on the 6th as evidence that his stockpiling of weapons and ammo are not proof of intent to start shooting people. Why does he need 1,000 hollow point bullets?

You say that I have not answered your questions. I am not sure what they were exactly because it is hard to find them in this long thread. I think that you asked me whether I thought I was superior to Hitler or the Nazi's. I am critical of what these people did so I see the perspective they came from as something to avoid. But I am really saying that, even if you see it as a contradiction, that we should rise above beliefs about superiority.

I would agree that people are not necessarily free from the threat of poverty and homelessness in the first world countries. I think that sometimes people can use the language of equality and political correctness as empty rhetoric. Attitudes towards the vulnerable are more than just words. But this is a complex topic, especially as we are having it in the middle of a thread of many other highly emotional dialogues.

I asked you for a credible threat emerging from Parler. You say you found one. But Florea didn't attend the event. He mouthed off on Parler - pretending he was attending, pretending he intended violence, pretending he was armed. But read the case notes carefully - HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS when arrested. And he didn't attend the event.

What you're left with is some sad sack, mouthing off on the internet, who had some ammunition in his house he wasn't supposed to have.

What I don't understand is, how you imagine he was doing the movement he pretended to support, any favours? This isn't someone who supports the movement. This is a pretender. A fantasist. A sheep in wolf's clothing. A shit stirring lefty? Quite possibly!

BLM never called for violence. — frank

Yet blacks were causing violence. Who is BLM? They obviously don't speak for all blacks.

People aren't equal. It's a fact of life.
Why try to sugarcoat this with politically correct notions that do nothing but set vulnerable people up for failure?

I don't advocate any particular political or social system. I am opposed to the politically correct pretenses of equality which just add insult to injury. — baker

What adds insult to injury is telling someone born without your advantages that their failures are because they are not your equal.

There was a psychological experiment some years back. Pairs of people playing against each other at Monopoly. At the start, a coin was tossed. Whoever won the coin toss was given twice as much money as their opponent at the start, could roll twice as many die each go, and received twice as much when they passed Go (which they did twice as often).

As such, the winner of the coin toss won Monopoly. The winner played more aggressively, was ruder, gloated frequently, and consistently overestimated their skill.

When asked how they won the game, not a single player mentioned the coin toss. Each believed they'd won because they were the better player.

People who benefit from systematic inequality point the finger at the disadvantaged and insist they are intrinsically lesser than the advantaged. It's unfortunately a quirk of psychology that being born privileged turns you into a jerk.

There can be different interpretation of facts but when people believe lies despite the availability of facts to the contrary there is no subjective nature to discuss. — Benkei

But when all of your "facts" seem to indicate that your side doesn't do anything wrong, isn't capable of oppressing others, and that the other side is the problem, then that should be a red flag that your "facts" are merely propaganda.

If it were actually a fact that one side is worse than the other, then what reason would we have in keeping the other side viable? And in eliminating the other side, did you just eliminate the available choices we all have?

The fact is that both sides are the problem. Political parties are the problem. There should be no sides in a political discussion. There should simply be individuals expressing their opinions, as no one else has the right to speak for someone else, especially if they can speak for themselves.

That said, assertions how other people are pawns is being emotionally invested in your own assertions as well. So by pretending you're above it all, you just demonstrate you're completely in the same game as those you tell yourselves it's ok to ignore. — Benkei

LOL. No, being emotionally invested means that you are afraid to be wrong. But being afraid to be wrong means that you will never make mistakes. If you never make mistakes, you will never learn. Have you ever been wrong in any of your political/ethical views, Benkei?

I am more than happy to be proven wrong that most Americans are pawns in the political game between Reps and Dems. I just need evidence.

That is not what I wrote. — Kenosha Kid

You didn't have to. It is implied in what you wrote.

You didn't have to. It is implied in what you wrote. — Harry Hindu

No, it wasn't. Also, you quoted the text and it was perfectly explicit. It didn't require your layer of your bullshit interpretation.

A truly woke person realizes their pawnship and navigates within that role to peace, joy, and a fern garden with lots of moss and a little buddha statue at the end of the path that leads from the rock garden in a world where the weather has become the water feature due to el nino.

What were we talking about? — frank

Actually, for me, it would be a little statue of Shiva, in a garden of hemp. That is the epitome of peace and joy for me.

:cool:

Yeah, bruh. What were we talking about?

No, it wasn't. Also, you quoted the text and it was perfectly explicit. It didn't require your layer of your bullshit interpretation. — Kenosha Kid

Yes it was. Also, no it wasn't.

Yes it was. Also, no it wasn't. — Harry Hindu

Look, it doesn't matter much to me whether you want to come across as a liar or an idiot, so interpreting my statements as contrary ones is your call. Either way, all you're demonstrating is that you're not worth engaging with which you've over-established already.

Look, it doesn't matter much to me whether you want to come across as a liar or an idiot, so interpreting my statements as contrary ones is your call. Either way, all you're demonstrating is that you're not worth engaging with which you've over-established already. — Kenosha Kid

Forgive me if I don't really care what you think or say about me. When you can actually think for yourself and not just regurgitate everything you read, I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion with you.

I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion with you. — Harry Hindu

I'll be happy to take Emily Blunt for my wife, doesn't mean I can feasibly do it.

Because I have dibs!

Because I have dibs! — StreetlightX

The only thing in my way... :rofl: Watch your back.

Both sides are the problem, said the guy who paints people he disagrees with as pawns and pretending he isn't one himself. So we have non-pawns and pawns, and within pawns there's whatever you're alluding to on two opposing sides as well. Yawn.

You're wilfully blind to the obvious if stockpiling ammo and repeatedly threatening people don't constitute a credible threat.