IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th February 2021, 10:13 AM   #41
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
If a publication prints something libelous, it is a duty of the Gov to pursue that publication, not the magazine shop that offers it along with other publications.

That has been pretty clearly established for decades- if not centuries- in the U.S.

Threatening the seller is extortion- not justice.
What exactly is the threat? Despite the histrionics from the right, this isn't at all like a mob threat. For one thing, the mob threat of "shame if something happens" clearly implies that something will happen and what will happen. Yet nobody seems to be able to specify what is being threatened here.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:27 AM   #42
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,620
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
The causal connection between spreading falsehoods about Covid and more deaths from Covid is weak? Are you certain about that?
The causal connection between any one person's statement and any one person's death is in general VERY weak. And yes, I'm quite certain of that. But people don't actually care about that, not really. We do in fact have direct causal connections between certain people's actions and thousands of deaths from coronavirus. Just look at Cuomo's nursing home orders. But that gets a pass because reasons. So coronavirus deaths are a pretense for this, not the actual motive.

Quote:
And I do appreciate the admission that to you the right to lie is paramount
If you don't have the right to lie ever, you don't have freedom of speech, because all it takes is someone declaring your speech to be a lie and it's removed, whether or not it actually is a lie. As I explicitly stated and you seem to have ignored, if I cannot ever tell a lie, I cannot tell the truth either.

Quote:
Legally however, the right to lie is not actually as powerful as you seem to think. You've previously been in favor of penalties for perjury
Perjury is a very specific form of lying, and the tests for it are rightly quite high. We aren't talking about tests anywhere close to that level of scrutiny. In fact, the whole point of this current effort is to suppress speech without even having to go to court.

Quote:
until they applied to your side that is
Now you're lying about me.

Quote:
In addition to perjury, we have laws against slander and defamation.
Again, very specific forms of lying, with quite stringent tests.

Quote:
In fact, OANN and Fox are both in hot water of just those lies, and are retracting and firing hosts over them.
You're just cherry picking (plenty of other news organizations have been in hot water over defamation). But what's the point? Defamation laws already cover defamation. The entire issue here is trying to extend suppression of speech well past what defamation law covers.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 24th February 2021 at 10:30 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:29 AM   #43
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,651
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
What exactly is the threat? Despite the histrionics from the right, this isn't at all like a mob threat. For one thing, the mob threat of "shame if something happens" clearly implies that something will happen and what will happen. Yet nobody seems to be able to specify what is being threatened here.
I've asked in this thread multiple times what the specific threat was, but I'm only getting pearl clutching and bemoaning that people don't agree with them.

If they're so certain this constitutes a threat, it should be an easy question to answer.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:35 AM   #44
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
What exactly is the threat? Despite the histrionics from the right, this isn't at all like a mob threat. For one thing, the mob threat of "shame if something happens" clearly implies that something will happen and what will happen. Yet nobody seems to be able to specify what is being threatened here.
What exactly does it imply will happen?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:40 AM   #45
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,345
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
What exactly is the threat? Despite the histrionics from the right, this isn't at all like a mob threat. For one thing, the mob threat of "shame if something happens" clearly implies that something will happen and what will happen. Yet nobody seems to be able to specify what is being threatened here.


1. What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?
~~~Implication: Your company OUGHT TO apply moral or ethical principles to decide which channels to carry, and the channels that we think you OUGHT NOT carry are Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax. Infomercials about homeopathic remedies are fine, as are shows about ancient aliens and all sorts of other falsehoods and misinformation... but these specific channels OUGHT to be subject to special guidelines.


2. Do you require, through contracts or otherwise, that the channels you carry abide by any content guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the guidelines.
~~~Implication: You OUGHT TO have content guidelines that will prohibit these specific channels from saying things that we don't want them to say. Other channels can carry content that is false, misleading, etc. because we don't care about that content, we only care about this specific content on these specific channels.

3. How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on Fios TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel.
~~~Implication: Take some time and consider how we might penalize you, the carrier, for allowing that many people to be exposed to content that we deem inappropriate. Give some thought to how we might frame the narrative, and suggest that your company bears responsibility for people thinking the election was stolen, or that your company is partly to blame for the attack on the capitol. Remember how we did that to Facebook and held Facebook accountable for troll accounts during the 2016 election? Yeah, we can do that to you too.

4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken.
~~~Implication: WE know that you didn't do anything to stop those channels that we disapprove of... so maybe you better start drafting policies right now that can tell us how you're going to monitor and interfere in the content that channels on your platform bring forth, and how you're going to interfere in freedom of the press on our behalf.

5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation? If yes, please describe each action, when it was taken, and
the parties involved.

~~~Implication: If you haven't taken adverse action against these specific channels, you ought to do so now. Your failure to punish them and abridge their freedom of the press on our behalf makes you culpable.

6. Have you ever taken any actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate any disinformation? If yes, please describe each action and when it was taken.
~~~Implication: You better get busy creating policies so that you can take action against channels that disseminate disinformation - but only the ones that we specify. Religious channels, Ancient aliens, claims to have evidence of paranormal encounters or bigfoot, those are okay. It's really only these particular channels that we want you to silence for us.

7. Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on Fios TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?
~~~Implication: We strongly suggest that you should cancel those channels. And a strong suggestion from congress is probably something you shouldn't ignore. We're not allowed to squash them ourselves, because the constitution says we can't... but you could "voluntarily" decide to do this on our behalf.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:43 AM   #46
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The causal connection between any one person's statement and any one person's death is in general VERY weak. And yes, I'm quite certain of that.

No, the connection is obvious and VERY strong. If you tell people to drink bleach to cure Covid-19, people who believe you may drink bleach and some of them may die.

If you tell people that SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne and face masks are dangerous, people who believe you will assume that they are safe indoors as long as they practice social distancing, and some of those people will get infected and some of those infected will get sick and die. A similar thing happens if you tell people that asymptomatic or presymptomactic SARS-CoV-2 carriers don't transmit the virus to others: The lie helps spread the virus, people get infected, people die.

And yes, I'm quite certain of that. These lies were (and still are) spread in Sweden.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:48 AM   #47
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,393
Okay seriously how many of the exact same discussion are we going to have?

"I don't understand why my wrongness isn't treated with equal respect as other people's correctness and my response to this is to start a wide philosophical debate instead of just, oh I dunno, not being wrong anymore."
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:50 AM   #48
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,162
Again, none of this has anything to do with the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please Emily, and/or those who agree with her, show me..

- Where in the wording of 1A media or content platforms are mentioned?
- Where in the wording of 1A Congress is restricted from questioning the content of media publications?
- Which laws Congress has made any law abridging the free speech of the media or content platforms?

It has not gone unnoticed by this writer that when some members of the left in Congress such as Eshoo and McNerney write a few letters questioning the content of media platforms, they are "taking on 1A by proxy" but when
members of the right in Congress, such as Taylor Greene, Boebert and Hawley bleat about their free speech right supposedly being impinged... crickets!

I'm not even American, but it appears I have a better understanding of the First Amendment to the US Constitution than a lot of forum members who are.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 24th February 2021 at 10:53 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:51 AM   #49
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your question is disingenuous, since the causal connection between these is weak. The actual question is whether my right to lie is more important than your right to prevent me from lying.

And the answer is yes, it is. Because if we're being honest, if you get the right to stop me from lying, you'll also have the power to stop me from telling the truth.
Indeed. But this should not preclude the application of sanctions after the lying has been shown to be such. That is, knowingly and deliberately. At least where some harm has demonstrably resulted.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 10:55 AM   #50
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your question is disingenuous, since the causal connection between these is weak. The actual question is whether my right to lie is more important than your right to prevent me from lying.

Nobody can prevent you from lying. But I can prevent you from spreading your lies in my newspaper or on my website. How on Earth did you come up with the idea that somebody would prevent you from lying? Pointing out your lies and misunderstandings is the only thing we can do.

That you seem to think that it infringes upon your right to lie if somebody doesn't want to help you spread those lies speaks volumes about what you feel you are entitled to.

But thank you for confirming that the alleged concerns of conservatives about freedom of speech is actually the fear that their spreading of lies may be impeded.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:03 AM   #51
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 14,508
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay seriously how many of the exact same discussion are we going to have?

"I don't understand why my wrongness isn't treated with equal respect as other people's correctness and my response to this is to start a wide philosophical debate instead of just, oh I dunno, not being wrong anymore."
In other words, ”But I wanna make up facts! My arguments work so much better in an imaginary world.”
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:05 AM   #52
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,651
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
~~~Implication: Take some time and consider how we might penalize you, the carrier, for allowing that many people to be exposed to content that we deem inappropriate. Give some thought to how we might frame the narrative, and suggest that your company bears responsibility for people thinking the election was stolen, or that your company is partly to blame for the attack on the capitol. Remember how we did that to Facebook and held Facebook accountable for troll accounts during the 2016 election? Yeah, we can do that to you too.
This is the closest you've gotten to identifying any meat to the threat that you're talking about.

Do you view a public hearing to be a punishment? An inappropriate action?
Is there some other substance to the threat you are imagining?

Because if all of this comes down to is "If you don't do what we like, we could make you testify publicly about it!" I'm not feeling the chilling effect.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:05 AM   #53
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,620
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Indeed. But this should not preclude the application of sanctions after the lying has been shown to be such. That is, knowingly and deliberately. At least where some harm has demonstrably resulted.
Existing law does that adequately.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:11 AM   #54
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The causal connection between any one person's statement and any one person's death is in general VERY weak. And yes, I'm quite certain of that. But people don't actually care about that, not really. We do in fact have direct causal connections between certain people's actions and thousands of deaths from coronavirus. Just look at Cuomo's nursing home orders. But that gets a pass because reasons. So coronavirus deaths are a pretense for this, not the actual motive.
We aren't discussing statements by one person, however. I'm sure you are aware of that, so I don't see why this disingenuous conflation between one person and the multitude of "news" organizations actually being discussed is supposed to fool anyone.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you don't have the right to lie ever, you don't have freedom of speech, because all it takes is someone declaring your speech to be a lie and it's removed, whether or not it actually is a lie. As I explicitly stated and you seem to have ignored, if I cannot ever tell a lie, I cannot tell the truth either.
Whether or not you are able to tell the truth, legal penalties for lies (perjury, slander, defamation, etc) don't seem to prevent most people from telling the truth. Perhaps the problem lies with you, and not with society or truth in general?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Perjury is a very specific form of lying, and the tests for it are rightly quite high. We aren't talking about tests anywhere close to that level of scrutiny. In fact, the whole point of this current effort is to suppress speech without even having to go to court.
Specific forms of lies are (spoiler alert) still lies. Laws against perjury don't seem to cause an inability to tell the truth, so it appears we can dispense with that particular claim of yours.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Now you're lying about me.
Sure, sure <cough cough process crimes cough> nobody remembers your claims that perjury shouldn't be enforced against members of your tribe.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, very specific forms of lying, with quite stringent tests.
Again, specific forms of lying are still lying, we still have laws against them, and those laws don't prevent the truth from being told.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You're just cherry picking (plenty of other news organizations have been in hot water over defamation). But what's the point? Defamation laws already cover defamation. The entire issue here is trying to extend suppression of speech well past what defamation law covers.
Providing real world examples of current events that disprove your claims is not cherry picking. In fact, that other news organizations have also faced hot water shreds your argument further. Do you ever get tired of own goals?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:12 AM   #55
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
What exactly does it imply will happen?
That's what I'm asking you. You claim this form letter implies something, so spell it out.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:13 AM   #56
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,345
Wow. Just wow. I don't even really know what to say to the responses in this thread.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 24th February 2021 at 11:16 AM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:17 AM   #57
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,162
Originally Posted by dann View Post
No, the connection is obvious and VERY strong. If you tell people to drink bleach to cure Covid-19, people who believe you may drink bleach and some of them may die.

If you tell people that SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne and face masks are dangerous, people who believe you will assume that they are safe indoors as long as they practice social distancing, and some of those people will get infected and some of those infected will get sick and die. A similar thing happens if you tell people that asymptomatic or presymptomactic SARS-CoV-2 carriers don't transmit the virus to others: The lie helps spread the virus, people get infected, people die.

And yes, I'm quite certain of that. These lies were (and still are) spread in Sweden.

[a little off topic but I will make the connection at the end]

Yup.

Despite being one of the richest and most sophisticated counties in the world, The US has

4% of the world's population
25% of the cases
20% of the deaths.

There are some very obvious reasons for this

1. The total abdication of leadership and presidential responsibility by Trump and his administration, in utterly failing to lead the country out of the crisis. (see Australia and New Zealand for examples of what real political leadership should look like in a pandemic).

2. The unchecked spread of conspiracy theories related to the virus and the encouragement of those conspiracy theories by many influential members of the political right.

3. the politicization of mask wearing by the GOP and the right wing.

Yes, words matter - and the words of political leaders don't just matter, they result in consequences. The causal connection between people's statements and people's deaths is VERY strong. The words of Trump compared with the words of Morrison and Ardern and their respective subsequent consequences in the related Covid death tolls demonstrates this in spades!
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:18 AM   #58
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,345
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I don't know Emily's Cat's position on Covid-19 being a hoax or how one should ignore medical advice and instead take quack remedies, so I'm curious if social media attempting to curb the spread of those falsehoods bothers Emily's Cat as much as social media attempting to curb the spread of political falsehoods.
I don't think Covid is a hoax. That said... stupid people saying it's a hoax should me no more or less subject to penalization and silencing that people who believe vaccines cause autism, or who think homeopathy is effective, or who think big foot is real, or who think 9-11 was an inside job, or who think god is real.

Believe stupid things, and speaking to those things, and even trying to convince other people that the stupid thing you believe is reasonable shouldn't, in my opinion, justify taking action against them.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:20 AM   #59
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post


1. What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?
~~~Implication: Your company OUGHT TO apply moral or ethical principles to decide which channels to carry, and the channels that we think you OUGHT NOT carry are Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax. Infomercials about homeopathic remedies are fine, as are shows about ancient aliens and all sorts of other falsehoods and misinformation... but these specific channels OUGHT to be subject to special guidelines.


2. Do you require, through contracts or otherwise, that the channels you carry abide by any content guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the guidelines.
~~~Implication: You OUGHT TO have content guidelines that will prohibit these specific channels from saying things that we don't want them to say. Other channels can carry content that is false, misleading, etc. because we don't care about that content, we only care about this specific content on these specific channels.

3. How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on Fios TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel.
~~~Implication: Take some time and consider how we might penalize you, the carrier, for allowing that many people to be exposed to content that we deem inappropriate. Give some thought to how we might frame the narrative, and suggest that your company bears responsibility for people thinking the election was stolen, or that your company is partly to blame for the attack on the capitol. Remember how we did that to Facebook and held Facebook accountable for troll accounts during the 2016 election? Yeah, we can do that to you too.

4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken.
~~~Implication: WE know that you didn't do anything to stop those channels that we disapprove of... so maybe you better start drafting policies right now that can tell us how you're going to monitor and interfere in the content that channels on your platform bring forth, and how you're going to interfere in freedom of the press on our behalf.

5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation? If yes, please describe each action, when it was taken, and
the parties involved.

~~~Implication: If you haven't taken adverse action against these specific channels, you ought to do so now. Your failure to punish them and abridge their freedom of the press on our behalf makes you culpable.

6. Have you ever taken any actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate any disinformation? If yes, please describe each action and when it was taken.
~~~Implication: You better get busy creating policies so that you can take action against channels that disseminate disinformation - but only the ones that we specify. Religious channels, Ancient aliens, claims to have evidence of paranormal encounters or bigfoot, those are okay. It's really only these particular channels that we want you to silence for us.

7. Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on Fios TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?
~~~Implication: We strongly suggest that you should cancel those channels. And a strong suggestion from congress is probably something you shouldn't ignore. We're not allowed to squash them ourselves, because the constitution says we can't... but you could "voluntarily" decide to do this on our behalf.
Oh my goodness, there might be public hearings? Oh noes, those are absolutely like being burned at the stake! Look, when we had to have some 10-33 (depending on the definition) congressional hearings over 4 people dying in Benghazi, forgive me if I think your fear over hearings about the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths is hogwash.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:22 AM   #60
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 25,473
I think that the "news islands" really are a problem, and I think it might be possible to do something about it. However, I have always been very, very, suspicious of anything at all that even hints at censorship from the government.


I would ask one question to anyone who wants more government control on any aspect of media or the press today. Is there any nation in the world today who is doing things the way you would like to see things done? Is there any government that we ought to emulate when it comes to regulation of media, either social media or corporate media? (I almost said "conventional", but when I grew up, "conventional" media was network television and newspapers that were printed on paper. Those things barely exist today, and certainly not in the form I grew up with. I'm not sure what "conventional" really is anymore.)
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:22 AM   #61
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,620
Originally Posted by dann View Post
No, the connection is obvious and VERY strong. If you tell people to drink bleach to cure Covid-19, people who believe you may drink bleach and some of them may die.
If you follow the link to the only specific case your source mentions of drinking cleaning products, you get this:

Quote:
Two people in Georgia drank liquid cleaning products over the weekend in misguided attempts to ward off COVID-19, according to the Georgia Poison Center. Both men had histories of psychiatric problems and are expected to recover.
It mentions some other examples of people with mental problems ingesting cleaners but surviving, and it never actually claims any specific source of motivation for them.

The one actual death it DOES mention is the case of hydroxychloroquine (not bleach) poisoning, but (1) hydroxychloroquine is a real medical treatment, so no lie involved, and (2) there's strong reason to suspect that this wasn't an accidental poisoning but deliberate homicide.

Now again, I'm not arguing that there's no connections here. But there's a difference between some probabilistic connection between a category of speech and a category out events, and a causal connection between specific speech and specific events. The law requires the latter in order to sanction speech. The former doesn't suffice, and for good reason.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:26 AM   #62
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't think Covid is a hoax. That said... stupid people saying it's a hoax should me no more or less subject to penalization and silencing that people who believe vaccines cause autism, or who think homeopathy is effective, or who think big foot is real, or who think 9-11 was an inside job, or who think god is real.

Believe stupid things, and speaking to those things, and even trying to convince other people that the stupid thing you believe is reasonable shouldn't, in my opinion, justify taking action against them.
Wait, believing that drinking bleach cures Covid, and convincing others to drink bleach and kill themselves doesn't justify taking the action of preventing that particular lie to be spread? Are you serious?

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 24th February 2021 at 12:22 PM.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:28 AM   #63
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,620
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
We aren't discussing statements by one person, however.
Statements by one person are what's going to get censored.

Quote:
Whether or not you are able to tell the truth, legal penalties for lies (perjury, slander, defamation, etc) don't seem to prevent most people from telling the truth. Perhaps the problem lies with you, and not with society or truth in general?
Because those prohibitions are subject to very strict limits and very stringent burdens of proof, none of which are in play here. Your deliberate attempts to ignore this difference are a lie in themselves.

Quote:
Sure, sure <cough cough process crimes cough> nobody remembers your claims that perjury shouldn't be enforced against members of your tribe.
Yet more lies. First, to get pedantic, it wasn't perjury to begin with. Second, whether or not it qualified was in fact the entire question.

Quote:
Providing real world examples of current events that disprove your claims is not cherry picking.
How on earth do those events disprove my claim? In fact, what do you think my claim even is?

Quote:
In fact, that other news organizations have also faced hot water shreds your argument further. Do you ever get tired of own goals?
No, it doesn't. As I explicitly stated and as you seem to want to ignore, current defamation law works. The current discussion is about attempts to go much further than current defamation law allows in suppressing speech. And none of your examples of defamation demonstrate any need to do so.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:29 AM   #64
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 59,717
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
I think the principle is the only words that matter are the pronouns.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

Last edited by zooterkin; 24th February 2021 at 12:22 PM.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:31 AM   #65
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 8,449
I fail to see how this is anything but toothless bluster. Congress can't enact any law forcing these companies stop carrying misinformation, no matter how blatant it is. The cable execs may as use these complaints as toilet paper.


I fail to see how a voluntary inquiry is any kind of threat to freedom of expression. An attempt at political theatre that I very much doubt will get much traction.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 24th February 2021 at 11:33 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:34 AM   #66
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,620
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Wait, believing that drinking bleach cures Covid, and convincing others to drink bleach and kill themselves doesn't justify taking the action of preventing that particular lie to be spread? Are you serious?
Who killed themselves by drinking bleach? I can't find any reports of that, only reports of injuries.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:36 AM   #67
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,462
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Instead of directly infringing on free speech and freedom of the press, congress has taken the creative approach of putting pressure on the services that allow those platforms to be communicated.

We've already seen congress putting pressure on social media platforms, resulting in companies like Facebook and Twitter intervening to curb speech that congress considered problematic. We've seen topics treated as "banned topics" for private individuals to discuss on those platforms (the Biden story in the NY Post that was forcible suppressed and removed from social media prior to the election).

We're seeing beliefs and ideologies cast as extremist and seeing them weeded out of hosting services - Parler being a prime example.

Now we've got congress directly challenging cable and television companies for airing Fox News and other right-wing news outlets. The letters used to broach this topic seem to strongly suggest an attempt by congress to infringe on the freedom of the press by using pressure on intermediaries.

Read the letters from Eshoo and McNerny yourselves... and discuss.
https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo....rs-2.22.21.pdf

What are your thoughts on this with respect to freedom of the press and freedom of speech?
IMO you have fundamentally misunderstood what free speech it. Free speech does not imply that speech is consequence free. If the speech is harmful and unjust there can and should be consequences. By extension, platforms and services that knowingly allow harmful unjust speech can face consequences as well.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:40 AM   #68
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,162
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't think Covid is a hoax. That said... stupid people saying it's a hoax should me no more or less subject to penalization and silencing that people who believe vaccines cause autism, or who think homeopathy is effective, or who think big foot is real, or who think 9-11 was an inside job, or who think god is real.

Believe stupid things, and speaking to those things, and even trying to convince other people that the stupid thing you believe is reasonable shouldn't, in my opinion, justify taking action against them.
You are making two glaring mistakes here

1. You are conflating harmless lies with dangerous lies

2. You are ignoring the public good

Spreading lies about bigfoot is harmless, it does no physical damage to members the public. While spreading lies about 9/11 insults the memories of those who were murdered, and offends the survivors and the relatives of the victims, it ultimately doesn't get people killed. However, spreading lies and conspiracy theories about Covid-19 can and has resulted in harm, including deaths, to the public.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:42 AM   #69
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,620
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
2. You are ignoring the public good
Much mischief is committed in the name of the "public good".
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:45 AM   #70
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,162
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Who killed themselves by drinking bleach? I can't find any reports of that, only reports of injuries.
Because people injuring themselves following the instructions of their President is just fine and dandy.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:46 AM   #71
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,162
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Much mischief is committed in the name of the "public good".
Curbing Covid lies and misinformation isn't mischief.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:46 AM   #72
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
IMO you have fundamentally misunderstood what free speech it. Free speech does not imply that speech is consequence free. If the speech is harmful and unjust there can and should be consequences. By extension, platforms and services that knowingly allow harmful unjust speech can face consequences as well.
What are the laws that prohibit "unjust" speech?
And, please specify what "harmful" speech is. Would it include urging people to not wear masks to prevent the spread of covid- thereby resulting in more deaths?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:46 AM   #73
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,651
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Wow. Just wow. I don't even really know what to say to the responses in this thread.
Start with answering some questions that have been posed to you.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:49 AM   #74
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Much mischief is committed in the name of the "public good".
More mischief is currently being committed by those telling harmful lies, but obviously that doesn't matter if the lie is the most important thing.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:56 AM   #75
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,620
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Because people injuring themselves following the instructions of their President is just fine and dandy.
He didn't instruct anyone to drink bleach. And do the facts matter or do they not matter? Or do they only matter when you want them to? If nobody died from drinking bleach, then isn't it wrong to say they did? Or does that serve some Higher TruthTM? If injury is sufficient harm for your claim, then shouldn't you just say injury instead of death?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:57 AM   #76
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,462
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
What are the laws that prohibit "unjust" speech?
Defamation laws.

Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
And, please specify what "harmful" speech is. Would it include urging people to not wear masks to prevent the spread of covid- thereby resulting in more deaths?
Speech that results in people being harmed.

Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Would it include urging people to not wear masks to prevent the spread of covid- thereby resulting in more deaths?
Possibly. Tobacco companies have been sued for misrepresenting the health risks of their product. I can see lying about mask use being treated similarly.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:57 AM   #77
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,620
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
More mischief is currently being committed by those telling harmful lies
Is it?

As I already mentioned, the most direct causal connection we have to specific actions and specific deaths from Covid is probably the nursing home orders. But that seems to get a pass for some reason. Which is why I think this is all a pretense.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 12:00 PM   #78
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Statements by one person are what's going to get censored.
Obviously you need to reread the OP as you clearly are confused about what is being discussed.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because those prohibitions are subject to very strict limits and very stringent burdens of proof, none of which are in play here. Your deliberate attempts to ignore this difference are a lie in themselves.
Nonsense. Your claim that legally being prevented from telling lies means that one then can't tell the truth is disproved by laws against lying. Well, as long as one accepts that truth is told somewhere your claim is disproved. I suppose if you personally can't tell the difference, or you personally can't tell the truth, then you won't be able to understand the failure of your claim.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yet more lies. First, to get pedantic, it wasn't perjury to begin with. Second, whether or not it qualified was in fact the entire question.
Bwahahaha, more own goals! First, you claim it didn't happen, then you attempt to quibble about how it happened and by doing so accept that it did happen. I'd say that simply telling the truth will prevent these trip-ups, but apparently because there are laws against lying you are unable to tell the truth. Just curious, what if we didn't have any laws against lying, would you then be able to tell the truth?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How on earth do those events disprove my claim? In fact, what do you think my claim even is?
This is where it feels like taking candy from a baby. You seriously don't remember your claim? The one that if you are legally prevented from lying you are then unable to tell the truth? The one both you and I have repeatedly stated in this exchange? Seek help, if you really can't remember.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it doesn't. As I explicitly stated and as you seem to want to ignore, current defamation law works. The current discussion is about attempts to go much further than current defamation law allows in suppressing speech. And none of your examples of defamation demonstrate any need to do so.
The simple fact that there is a current defamation law which does not prevent people or organizations from telling the truth disproves your claim that stopping you from telling lies means you can't tell the truth. Clearly you have forgotten your own claim.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 12:02 PM   #79
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Defamation laws.



Speech that results in people being harmed.



Possibly. Tobacco companies have been sued for misrepresenting the health risks of their product. I can see lying about mask use being treated similarly.
That was a lie widely disseminated by MSNBC. Dr. Fauci, and CNN.
Should the carriers of those networks face disciplinary action?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 12:03 PM   #80
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,460
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think the principle is the only words that matter are the pronouns.
Pretty consistent actually.

There shouldn't be social consequences.

There shouldn't be legal consequences.

There must not even be an examination of the incentives that could be contributing to the well evidenced and powerful problem.

From guns to capitalism to AGW to white nationalism to covid to taxes. Then they'll be shocked that by the time things get truly ****** we skip the less extreme ways that might have worked before. The assumption that any looking into the incentives is going to lead to government control of the media is pretty telling. No matter what measures are suggested, that's the attack they are going to use no matter how little that reflects reality.

Proudly wrong.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.