Author Topic: Interesting videos  (Read 8423 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #90 on: September 27, 2018, 07:06:52 pm »
This is a video of two liberals who actively resist and campaign against identity politics and the extremism of the left.

"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #91 on: September 29, 2018, 06:48:37 pm »
Tiny toy Toronto...

"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum
Like Like x 2 View List

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #92 on: September 29, 2018, 09:21:12 pm »
Love it !  Saw my office building a few times too.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #93 on: September 30, 2018, 01:21:32 pm »
This is a video of two liberals who actively resist and campaign against identity politics and the extremism of the left.

I watched, and I was generally okay with what they were saying up to the point where they got to Alex Jones.

The first thing they said was something along the lines of "I don't even want to get into what Alex Jones talks about, because that's beside the point..."  but it's not beside the point. It is the point.  You can't talk about the deplatforming of Alex Jones without actually talking about what has been removed from the platform.

They both take as a given that these privately owned platforms-- Twitter, Facebook, Youtube-- should be considered public utilities, and suggest that maybe they should be broken up like other monopolies.  Rubin at one point compares removing Jones from these platforms to cutting off water to his house.  That they both take all this as a given is a major hole in their argument, IMO.  That's an issue that in itself could be debated forever.   I'm certainly ok with the idea that the internet and world-wide-web itself has become a public utility, but individual services therein are not. Our radio airwaves are a public utility, but individual broadcasters therein are responsible for their own content.


I am with Rubin and Lehmann as far as it comes to the notion that ideas, even controversial ones, deserve a fair examination.  But I think we have a strong difference when it comes to what actually constitutes a fair examination.  To me, a fair examination requires some standard as to the accuracy of the claims being made and logical development of an argument.  A mentally disturbed imbecile asserting without evidence that Hillary Clinton has a dungeon full of child sex slaves locked up in the basement of a Washington pizza parlor is not an idea that deserves a fair examination. A mentally ill moron claiming that the parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook are all actors, posting their personal information on the internet, and inviting his audience to harass them, this isn't the kind of thing that deserves a fair hearing.


These two both failed out big-time when they tried to turn Alex Jones into a case study for what happens when you prevent people from presenting controversial ideas.  "Let's talk about Alex Jones... but let's not talk about what he actually says or the reasons he got booted off these platforms... let's just pretend that this happened to somebody who had serious ideas to present."


I have not yet watched part 2, which is apparently called "outrage and the alt-right".  I am anticipating that they're going to bemoan that people refused to have an honest engagement with the alt-right, even though the alt-right in themselves don't actually follow any rules of honest engagement in their discourse.


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #94 on: September 30, 2018, 01:33:26 pm »

I have not yet watched part 2, which is apparently called "outrage and the alt-right".  I am anticipating that they're going to bemoan that people refused to have an honest engagement with the alt-right, even though the alt-right in themselves don't actually follow any rules of honest engagement in their discourse.

As I recall they mostly dismiss the alt-right as racists, and bemoan how the term has been stretched to encompass too many people - that there are few who are actually alt-right, and stretching it makes it seem like they are some kind of big, powerful force when they're simply not. They also talk about the outrage industry of the internet and mobs that get organized against every little thing.

I agree that there are more important things to worry about than lunatics like Jones, but some free speech advocates are of the opinion that all speech is protected (aside from lawsuits for slander/libel) or none is.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #95 on: September 30, 2018, 02:21:12 pm »
As I recall they mostly dismiss the alt-right as racists, and bemoan how the term has been stretched to encompass too many people - that there are few who are actually alt-right, and stretching it makes it seem like they are some kind of big, powerful force when they're simply not. They also talk about the outrage industry of the internet and mobs that get organized against every little thing.

I'll reserve comment until I watch it.

I agree that there are more important things to worry about than lunatics like Jones, but some free speech advocates are of the opinion that all speech is protected (aside from lawsuits for slander/libel) or none is.

Why "aside from"?  If you're willing to concede exceptions in some circumstances (slander, libel, inciting violence, shouting fire in a theatre...) then clearly the principle is not absolute and at this point it becomes a question of where to draw the lines.

And again, their desire to discuss the deplatforming of Alex Jones without actually discussing the reasons he was deplatformed is a big fail. Alex Jones regularly commits slander and arguably incites violence as well. If those are exceptions to free speech that free speech advocates agree on, then they ought to agree that he stepped over the line.

And the idea that private businesses like Facebook and Youtube and Twitter don't have any business establishing terms of use for their services strikes me as something that merits a lot of discussion, they just accept it as a given that these are utilities like water or electricity. They're not. They have shareholders, they generate revenue, and maintaining the support of large numbers of users is important to their bottom line.  In the case of Twitter, one of the draws of Twitter is supposed to be the opportunity to interact directly with famous people.  Famous people are now starting to leave Twitter because of ongoing harrassment from alt-right goons.  As famous people leave, and as these harrassment campaigns themselves put a black eye on Twitter's public image, it's conceivable that Twitter usership will decline if this is allowed to go on unchecked. Is Twitter supposed to just it back and do nothing?


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #96 on: September 30, 2018, 02:57:04 pm »
New media... new situations to consider...
Old Old x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #97 on: September 30, 2018, 03:39:52 pm »
Twitter's public image, it's conceivable that Twitter usership will decline if this is allowed to go on unchecked. Is Twitter supposed to just it back and do nothing?
Of course not, but it could do a much better job of setting out clear, nonpartisan rules and enforcing them even evenhandedly. The damage to twitter's rep comes from the perception that reasonable right wing posters are locked out while left-wing racists are allowed to post with impunity. I can't find a link to the 'panel' of experts that twitter got to advise them a couple years ago but it was a pack of rabid SJWs. It should come as no surprise that they are under fire for bias today.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #98 on: September 30, 2018, 04:34:41 pm »
Why "aside from"?  If you're willing to concede exceptions in some circumstances (slander, libel, inciting violence, shouting fire in a theatre...) then clearly the principle is not absolute and at this point it becomes a question of where to draw the lines.

Because slander/libel is considered a remedy against falsehood which threatens or damages an individual or organization or their reputation.
You're still free to speak your mind, but if you can't prove what you say is true, then you're in trouble.
For example, the families in the Sandy Hook incident could sue Jones. Clinton could, as well.

Quote
And again, their desire to discuss the deplatforming of Alex Jones without actually discussing the reasons he was deplatformed is a big fail.

As I recall they didn't spent a lot of time on this, and what they were mostly alarmed at was that the actions occurred simultaneously, suggesting there were consutlations between them.

Quote
And the idea that private businesses like Facebook and Youtube and Twitter don't have any business establishing terms of use for their services strikes me as something that merits a lot of discussion,


I think the worry is bias. In one of the things I read, and maybe posted recently there was a thing about a reporter for the New  York Times who regularly tweeted things about whites which were pretty racist, although now she says, basically "I was joking!" If so she liked to joke like that over a long period of time. Someone retweeted her exact words but reversed the races and twitter blocked them almost immediately.

https://www.instyle.com/news/why-new-york-times-hire-sarah-jeong-labeled-racist
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 04:41:13 pm by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #99 on: September 30, 2018, 05:47:10 pm »
New media... new situations to consider...

The people who founded freedom of expression and freedom of the press couldn't have conceived of someone inventing the most outrageous lies (eg. parents of massacred children are paid liars) to make money.  There may not be policy ways to stop it, and it may not die on its own either.

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #100 on: September 30, 2018, 05:54:37 pm »
..the perception that reasonable right wing posters are locked out while left-wing racists are allowed to post with impunity

I have only heard the opposite.  That right wingers game the system, and successfully get people banned for innocuous posts.

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #101 on: September 30, 2018, 05:57:01 pm »
Because slander/libel is considered a remedy against falsehood which threatens or damages an individual or organization or their reputation.
You're still free to speak your mind, but if you can't prove what you say is true, then you're in trouble.
For example, the families in the Sandy Hook incident could sue Jones. Clinton could, as well.

Yes but you have to show damage and get due financial compensation.  What if you can't do that.  Saying that it's a conspiracy and the families were in on it may not impact one of the families in a tangible way.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #102 on: September 30, 2018, 06:45:10 pm »
I have only heard the opposite.  That right wingers game the system, and successfully get people banned for innocuous posts.
Which re-enforces the need for a transparent process with clear unambiguous rules that are enforced consistently. It is not an easy problem to solve because people will 'game the system' but it is a problem that twitter needs to solve before governments try to solve it for them and that would be very bad.

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #103 on: September 30, 2018, 06:48:29 pm »
Which re-enforces the need for a transparent process with clear unambiguous rules that are enforced consistently.

Well, it's a private network... are you saying it should be regulated by the government ?

Quote
It is not an easy problem to solve because people will 'game the system' but it is a problem that twitter needs to solve before governments try to solve it for them and that would be very bad.

They actually only have to make the mainstream happy, just like the TV networks did.  Nobody burned down CBS headquarters because they never put Chomsky on. 

Jones is a ****-heel and mob rules work for this... off with his head...

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Interesting videos
« Reply #104 on: September 30, 2018, 06:52:00 pm »

" it is a problem that twitter needs to solve before governments try to solve it for them "

Side example:

California has now outlawed all male company boards...

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/30/news/california-requires-women-board-of-directors/index.html