• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Favour said:
You care, clearly. Open your eyes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you got me, I care about attempted coups. Can take it further even, I think others should care too.

Still no source I take it. Could it be that you know that the sources you have aren't credible? Or is there some other reason why despite replying several times you're unable or unwilling to post a source to your claim?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
awesome dawson said:
So you don't want your descendants to be bleach salesmen. Great to have ambition I guess.

So going back to last week when you blabbed on here about trump not saying anything wrong, in the lead up to the mob siege of Congress which cost innocent lives. With hindsight would you like to retract those posts and acknowledge that you made a class A taco of yourself?
Click to expand...
I don't really follow much of what Trump says, only what's reported here. So if he's adopted any of those tweets or said anything new, please feel free to point them out and I'll comment.

If what he said hasn't changed then neither has my opinion.
 
thfcsteff said:
Err, it's a tad more complicated than that.

Facebook and twitter are platforms which allow content as long as they don't violate section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the one that it appears most politicians would like to amend/get rid of. It actually protects social media companies from liability/responsibility for their content and also their content-hosting choices, recognizing that holding these companies responsible for every bit of content they host is a near-impossible action.

If you can name me several examples where Facebook and Twitter have chosen to cancel content that does not violate hate-speak, illegal activity or the propagation of lies with regards to political situations, then I'm all eyes.
Click to expand...
Possibly in the US, as section 230 is incredibly weak.

In the UK and the EU publishers are responsible for their content and social media companies are being treated as publishers.

In choosing to fact check some posters and not others, they are making an editorial, political and smart commercial decision. What they are not doing is making an arm's length, blanket one.
 
thfcsteff said:
That does not answer my question. What is "class" in your world? Let me give you a clue as I think you're struggling. Class and money are not necessarily bedfellows (in fact, in key experience, they are very often in opposite rooms)...
Click to expand...
I started a fairly long-winded post before realising this is far simpler to explain with a link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_Kingdom

I'd caveat their comments on wealth by pointing out that one should never be able to tell that another is wealthy - displays of wealth are entirely vulgar and why so many of London's more recent holders of wealth would be discounted.
 
braineclipse said:
How about numerous studies showing that your name is correlated with getting interviews when applying for jobs?
Click to expand...
Depends,

I would judge someone sending in a CV with a made up name, not because of any suggestion it made as to their skin colour but as a hint of the kind of upbringing they were likely to have had. if they have a unique given name - something that Freakonomics tells me is apparently quite popular amongst black families in the US.
 
scaramanga said:
Possibly in the US, as section 230 is incredibly weak.

In the UK and the EU publishers are responsible for their content and social media companies are being treated as publishers.

In choosing to fact check some posters and not others, they are making an editorial, political and smart commercial decision. What they are not doing is making an arm's length, blanket one.
Click to expand...

I would need a little more proof that what you say is the case. Have there been court cases in the UK and EU?

Make no mistake, there are a lot of tossers out there who love private companies as platforms for communications, etc, until said-private company decides it doesn't want to host THEIR messages. Then these idiots bleat on about "freedom of speech" like they actually understand what that really means.

You and I have the right to call each other various names, but ultimately -whether I like it or not- you have the right to boot me from here because this is your site. It is -whether I like it or not- not a "state protected platform." If we were to call each other something, perhaps slander comes into play, but beyond that, this is your house.

Trump was in Dorsey's house, Bezoses house, Cook's house, etc. The fact they kicked the rude guest out too late is not part of the main equation. Those are their houses and they can invite/kick out who they want as private buildings!
 
thfcsteff said:
I would need a little more proof that what you say is the case. Have there been court cases in the UK and EU?

Make no mistake, there are a lot of tossers out there who love private companies as platforms for communications, etc, until said-private company decides it doesn't want to host THEIR messages. Then these idiots bleat on about "freedom of speech" like they actually understand what that really means.

You and I have the right to call each other various names, but ultimately -whether I like it or not- you have the right to boot me from here because this is your site. It is -whether I like it or not- not a "state protected platform." If we were to call each other something, perhaps slander comes into play, but beyond that, this is your house.

Trump was in Dorsey's house, Bezoses house, Cook's house, etc. The fact they kicked the rude guest out too late is not part of the main equation. Those are their houses and they can invite/kick out who they want as private buildings!
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with Trump and his ilk all being kicked from Twitter - I'm the last person who would want private companies being told what they can and can't do.

My issue is with them claiming to simply be a platform and not a publisher whilst making the choice as to who they do and don't like. Their history with anti-Semitic tweets is a good example of their slow and reluctant moderation when it's not posted by someone who has tinkled them off.
 
scaramanga said:
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with Trump and his ilk all being kicked from Twitter - I'm the last person who would want private companies being told what they can and can't do.

My issue is with them claiming to simply be a platform and not a publisher whilst making the choice as to who they do and don't like. Their history with anti-Semitic tweets is a good example of their slow and reluctant moderation when it's not posted by someone who has tinkled them off.
Click to expand...

Right.
That's private business for you. They can serve who they want.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't really follow much of what Trump says, only what's reported here. So if he's adopted any of those tweets or said anything new, please feel free to point them out and I'll comment.

If what he said hasn't changed then neither has my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to when he said to his good people/'Patriots' “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”, "march on Congress", "never stop fighting', on the morning of the siege. Even members of his own party, world leaders and a multitude of other commentators have clearly stated that he clearly contributed to the behaviour of the mob. Obviously you have issues with ever accepting you're wrong, despite making a career of it on here.

This article examines the legal ramifications of his words and the effect they had but I think if you take off you contrary hat, you'll admit he clearly stoked the flames and the outcome (innocent lives lost/democracy under attack) is his responsibility.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021...ncited-capitol-riot-is-in-eye-of-the-beholder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back