Play Nice Politics # 4 - The madness continues here.....

[relapse]

MOD NOTICE

Abusing and/or trolling other posters in this thread will not be tolerated from this point on.

Debate away and continue to have strong opinions, but abusing posters ie calling them idiots/stupid etc or trolling posters by laugh liking their posts will not be tolerated going forward.

​

 

[Vhaluus]

I like Joe Rogan but he hosts some absolutely vile people sometimes. Shapiro being a good example.

Joe Rogan IS a vile person.

He doesn't host those people out of coincidence.

 

[D Style]

If I sewed a dog's penis into Maybe Diva could I enter him/her/it/love symbol into a dog's race?

On CPH1831 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[arrowman]

The anti-deplatforming crowd tend to say they dislike it because it's censorship. The point I was trying to make (badly) is that fringe weirdos don't have a god given right to post videos on Youtube. It's a private company.

I don't think "it's a private company" is the be-all and end-all of this. Yes, they are a private company, but they are also part of an oligopoly that controls the great majority of the internet. How that oligopoly operates, and the moral / societal questions around they way they control content, is a legitimate subject for discussion and debate.

It's just a logical outcome that they'll take your content down if they decide hosting it is inconvenient or see value in point scoring by turfing you out.

I think it goes further than that, I believe there is a case to argue that they are moderating content on an ideological basis. And that is a legitimate debate.

 

[fortunatecrow]

Hillary was a more impressive candidate than Biden imo. Joe didnt carry the same baggage though. The right wing media has been smearing Hillary since the 90s. A fair chunk of democrats werent interested in her either.

One of my American clients gave me his point of view: that the Bush Family owns and controls the Republicans (well they thought they could control Trump!), and that the Clinton family owns and controls the Democrats. He didn't say who he voted for but gave me the clear impression that in his eyes there were two big empires at war and each was as bad as the other. Is he a typical voter though? Probably not.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I don't think "it's a private company" is the be-all and end-all of this. Yes, they are a private company, but they are also part of an oligopoly that controls the great majority of the internet. How that oligopoly operates, and the moral / societal questions around they way they control content, is a legitimate subject for discussion and debate.

This is a US centric take but I'm not sure the free-for-all nature of the internet is sustainable when you've got rednecks and conspiracy theorists storming the capitol. I feel like heavier government regulation of social media was always inevitable and it's only been accelerated by recent events. Right now what we're seeing is companies knowing which way the wind is blowing and trying to get ahead of the game by self-regulating. There is really nothing woke about it. It's pure self preservation.

I think it goes further than that, I believe there is a case to argue that they are moderating content on an ideological basis. And that is a legitimate debate.

Tbh I've never thought these companies were particularly ideological. They've all pushed against moderating their platforms for years.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

One of my American clients gave me his point of view: that the Bush Family owns and controls the Republicans (well they thought they could control Trump!), and that the Clinton family owns and controls the Democrats. He didn't say who he voted for but gave me the clear impression that in his eyes there were two big empires at war and each was as bad as the other. Is he a typical voter though? Probably not.

I've heard this take a lot. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think like that.

 

[Coopers]

If I sewed a dog's penis into Maybe Diva could I enter him/her/it/love symbol into a dog's race?

On CPH1831 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I suspect you'd have issues filling in the forms, but sure you could try.

 

[arrowman]

I'm not sure the free-for-all nature of the internet is sustainable when you've got rednecks and conspiracy theorists storming the capitol.

I'm not sure the free-for-all nature of the internet is sustainable when you've got rioters in the streets, looting, attacking people and burning businesses down, in the name of "anti-fascism".

- My point being: I think people's views / opinions on this subject can be strongly influenced by their political / ideological preferences: banning people I don't like = good / necessary, but banning people I agree with = bad. I think it's something we need to be aware of / wary of in this debate.

I feel like heavier government regulation of social media was always inevitable and it's only been accelerated by recent events.

I don't think these "recent events" constitute some sort of crossing of a line, such that governments and social media can no longer ignore the "problem". Incitement to violence, and organisation of violent protests, has been going on since - well, forever - on the internet. I think those who argue that the Capitol riot was some sort of special case that we can no longer ignore, are not arguing in good faith.

(btw There were also violent protests in Washington and across the US, on inauguration day 2017.)

Right now what we're seeing is companies knowing which way the wind is blowing and trying to get ahead of the game by self-regulating. There is really nothing woke about it. It's pure self preservation.

Tbh I've never thought these companies were particularly ideological. They've all pushed against moderating their platforms for years.

I disagree. There is - I believe anyway - a clear imbalance in the way these companies have applied their moderation policies, and this is down to the people working in those companies and their personal ideologies.

But anyway, this is a whole different bottle of frogs and verging on thread derailment

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I'm not sure the free-for-all nature of the internet is sustainable when you've got rioters in the streets, looting, attacking people and burning businesses down, in the name of "anti-fascism".

The protests you're talking about were about police brutality. Not fascism. Nine out of ten of the blm protests were peaceful too so your description is painting with some pretty broad strokes.

- My point being: I think people's views / opinions on this subject can be strongly influenced by their political / ideological preferences: banning people I don't like = good / necessary, but banning people I agree with = bad. I think it's something we need to be aware of / wary of in this debate.

I'm talking about banning extremists though. Not just anybody I disagree with. Don't ask me to be tolerant of nazis and white supremacists when those groups would happily snatch away the rights of others. Some of these people would literally prefer to ditch democracy in favour of a dictatorship. There is no middle ground to be had with these people and tolerating their presence only emboldens them.

I don't think these "recent events" constitute some sort of crossing of a line, such that governments and social media can no longer ignore the "problem". Incitement to violence, and organisation of violent protests, has been going on since - well, forever - on the internet. I think those who argue that the Capitol riot was some sort of special case that we can no longer ignore, are not arguing in good faith.

I doubt the politicians who had to be escorted into an underground bunker to wait out an angry mob would be so nonchalant about it. The Biden admin already would've had a hard on for regulating social media before the riot. Can imagine they're pitching an even bigger tent right now.

 

[Peter Doherty]

The protests you're talking about were about police brutality. Not fascism. Nine out of ten of the blm protests were peaceful too so your description is painting with some pretty broad strokes.

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, you write about the subject with some knowledge but say you've never really noticed the big internet platforms favour left leaning views. I consider myself neither left nor right and I think it's pretty well accepted they favour left, even extreme left views. Then you seem to not be aware of a group called 'Antifa', kinda weird.

I'm talking about banning extremists though. Not just anybody I disagree with. Don't ask me to be tolerant of nazis and white supremacists when those groups would happily snatch away the rights of others. Some of these people would literally prefer to ditch democracy in favour of a dictatorship. There is no middle ground to be had with these people and tolerating their presence only emboldens them.

There's a real issue where many people are being labelled 'Nazis' and 'White Supremacists' who are neither. These names are being thrown around a lot.

My hope is this bullshit left vs right thing finally reaches the point where most people see through all this s**t and realise how stupid it is. Many people are already there which is great, but so many are consumed by it, it's sick.

The more extreme the left get the more extreme the right get and the more and more alike they get.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, you write about the subject with some knowledge but say you've never really noticed the big internet platforms favour left leaning views. I consider myself neither left nor right and I think it's pretty well accepted they favour left, even extreme left views. Then you seem to not be aware of a group called 'Antifa', kinda weird.

You say you have no bias but most of your post reads like the same old persecution complex bullshit I always hear from conservatives around here. What's really weird though is seeing people refer to Antifa as a "group". There is no organisation. The FBI already shut this bullshit idea down so jog on.

“It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.” - FBI director Chris Wray.

FBI director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization

WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Chris Wray told lawmakers Thursday that antifa is an ideology, not an organization, delivering testimony that puts him at odds with President Donald Trump, who has said he would designate it a terror group.

apnews.com

My hope is this bullshit left vs right thing finally reaches the point where most people see through all this sh*t and realise how stupid it is. Many people are already there which is great, but so many are consumed by it, it's sick.

The more extreme the left get the more extreme the right get and the more and more alike they get.

Left and right is just a shorthand way to describe political beliefs. It would be helpful if more people understood what these terms actually mean but it's not a new thing. The terminology changes over the years but the dynamic of conservative vs progressive politics goes back to ancient times. It's existed your entire life, whether you were aware of it or not.

Yes extremism is bad. More than happy for crazy lefties to get booted off these platforms too if they peddle violence and bigotry.

 

[Mutineer]

There's a designated thread for Politics talk, maybe take it there would be an idea....

 

[Mr_Moogle]

There's a designated thread for Politics talk, maybe take it there would be an idea....

The same politics thread you had to ask a mod to ban you from because you couldn't stop yourself posting there.

 

[Peter Doherty]

You say you have no bias but most of your post reads like the same old persecution complex bullshit I always hear from conservatives around here. What's really weird though is seeing people refer to Antifa as a "group". There is no organisation. The FBI already shut this bullshit idea down so jog on.

You know nothing about my views, a pretty disgusting and revealing post by you. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically to be labelled extreme right it seems. There is no good faith from your end here.

This is where I get off, seeya!

 

[AdelaideFan14]

The protests you're talking about were about police brutality. Not fascism. Nine out of ten of the blm protests were peaceful too so your description is painting with some pretty broad strokes.


I'm talking about banning extremists though. Not just anybody I disagree with. Don't ask me to be tolerant of nazis and white supremacists when those groups would happily snatch away the rights of others. Some of these people would literally prefer to ditch democracy in favour of a dictatorship. There is no middle ground to be had with these people and tolerating their presence only emboldens them.


I doubt the politicians who had to be escorted into an underground bunker to wait out an angry mob would be so nonchalant about it. The Biden admin already would've had a hard on for regulating social media before the riot. Can imagine they're pitching an even bigger tent right now.

You do realise that Black Lives Matter have an administrator that set off actual bombs inside the United States Senate in 1983, right? She freely admitted to being a member of a Communist terrorist group. I haven't seen any US Politicians having any issue with her assisting BLM. Maybe I just missed the articles.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

You know nothing about my views, a pretty disgusting and revealing post by you. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically to be labelled extreme right it seems. There is no good faith from your end here.

This is where I get off, seeya!

I don't know you or what your political beliefs are but you are complaining about left wing media bias and talking about antifa. If you don't want labels stop doing a perfect impression of a chud.

 

[MarcusP2]

He said conservative, not 'extreme right'.

You know nothing about my views, a pretty disgusting and revealing post by you. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically to be labelled extreme right it seems. There is no good faith from your end here.

This is where I get off, seeya!

On Pixel 5 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crow Envy]

The same politics thread you had to ask a mod to ban you from because you couldn't stop yourself posting there.

Relevance?

 

[Mutineer]

The same politics thread you had to ask a mod to ban you from because you couldn't stop yourself posting there.

Maybe you should do the same, I'm glad I did. It's become a complete echo chamber now anyhow.

 

[arrowman]

There's a designated thread for Politics talk, maybe take it there would be an idea....

Yeah, fair call. Mr_Moogle I had some real zingers for you but I'll leave it.

I'm against thread derailment as much as the next fascist communist nazi racist BLM activist

 

[kirky]

And as the hours of his presidency are about to come to an end

 

[arrowman]

Yeah, fair call. Mr_Moogle I had some real zingers for you but I'll leave it.

I'm against thread derailment as much as the next fascist communist nazi racist BLM activist

Damn, the mods have removed my excuses by moving this stuff to its rightful place. OK, I'll be back later

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I can't remember what we were talking about. That dude mentioned antifa and I blacked out.

 

[jenny61_99]

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Some deranged whackos coming out of the woodworks after Biden got inaugurated. I mean I want to laugh but look at the state this person is in. Their religion/politics has totally ****ed them up.