US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[unknown lions fan]

I thought Amazon might stay neutral, after all, they're just a big goddamn store. But they also run AWS, and have deplatformed Parler (a service I do not use.)

Parler, the "extreme right wing" Twitter alternative. A site that must be banned for allowing free speech from right-statists.

These dirty hands...they're gettin' cleaner!

ren these dirty hands.png

[dpatnod]

Cool. I'm just gonna chill and drink a beer.

[unknown lions fan]

Me too

[froot loops]

I am pro-Amazon but I don't get how these companies put so much of their infrastructure on these cloud networks. That's where everything is going but it leaves your ass vulnerable.

[dpatnod]

Cheers ya anarchist bastard!!!!!

[unknown lions fan]

Chemo exposed a dirty little secret:

Anarchy ain't rocket science!

The ideas of individual liberty and freedom are quite simple. It's basically the "golden rule" you learned as a child. Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

It takes 13 years of indoctrination camp to get you to rationalize away, and harbor exceptions to the golden rule. They teach you

• Theft is bad, but when the state does it and calls it "taxation" it's good.
• Killing is bad, but when the state wants you to go murder foreigners, it's "war" and you're on the good team.
• Forcing others to do what you want them to do is bad, but when you "vote" and wield the violence of the state against them, it's "democracy."

I spent a decade studying the scholarly works of anarchism, but ultimately what I realized was that I was looking for "answers" to all of the fears that were programmed into me. I needed a concrete, perfect system of justice and fairness to convince me that freedom was feasible without the state.

You see that in the responses here. People accuse me of projecting a "perfect world" scenario of peace and love that runs counter to "human nature." Others project an ultra-violent world in which there is no cooperation, no civility, and no free enterprise in the absence of the state. These are fear-based statements, programmed reactions to protect anyone from the idea that they should be free.

I was there.

[dpatnod]

I am pro-Amazon but I don't get how these companies put so much of their infrastructure on these cloud networks. That's where everything is going but it leaves your ass vulnerable.

I still prefer owning a disc to owning a movie digitally. Probably going to have to get over it I guess. But it does feel dicey. Like if that company goes under wtf?

[dpatnod]

Chemo exposed a dirty little secret:

Anarchy ain't rocket science!

The ideas of individual liberty and freedom are quite simple. It's basically the "golden rule" you learned as a child. Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

It takes 13 years of indoctrination camp to get you to rationalize away, and harbor exceptions to the golden rule. They teach you

• Theft is bad, but when the state does it and calls it "taxation" it's good.
• Killing is bad, but when the state wants you to go murder foreigners, it's "war" and you're on the good team.
• Forcing others to do what you want them to do is bad, but when you "vote" and wield the violence of the state against them, it's "democracy."

I spent a decade studying the scholarly works of anarchism, but ultimately what I realized was that I was looking for "answers" to all of the fears that were programmed into me. I needed a concrete, perfect system of justice and fairness to convince me that freedom was feasible without the state.

You see that in the responses here. People accuse me of projecting a "perfect world" scenario of peace and love that runs counter to "human nature." Others project an ultra-violent world in which there is no cooperation, no civility, and no free enterprise in the absence of the state. These are fear-based statements, programmed reactions to protect anyone from the idea that they should be free.

I was there.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Don't take peoples stuff... like their twitter account right? Now I get it.

[JGSpartan]

You see that in the responses here. People accuse me of projecting a "perfect world" scenario of peace and love that runs counter to "human nature." Others project an ultra-violent world in which there is no cooperation, no civility, and no free enterprise in the absence of the state. These are fear-based statements, programmed reactions to protect anyone from the idea that they should be free.

I was there.

They aren't fear based statements though. They are facts backed up by thousands of years of human history and behavior. You can't just decide humans won't just behave the way they always have to make yourself feel better which is exactly what you are doing.

[chemiclord]

Any anarchist has to reconcile two pieces of human behavior with their grand theory of a state-less world:

1) That humans are social creatures. We are going to form social and business contracts with each other. Just because you don't want to call that collection of contracts a "state" doesn't mean that what you end up with isn't going to serve every function of the state you oh-so-despise (even the promise of retribution if one party breaks the contract). All you've done is change the name. And yes, the typical anarchist answer is that, "but you're forming those contracts yourself, not some state forming them for (or potentially against) you under the promise (whether overt or implied) of force." Which leads us to problem #2:

2) Humans are by and large lazy fuckers who look for the path of least resistance. Even if you are good with forming each and every social and business contract on your own representing just you and only you, 99.9% of humanity is not. They will either defer that right to someone else (be it a state or some other leadership figure), or just take what they want if they think they can do so without consequence. There really is no scenario where the sort of massive consolidations of power that anarchists abhor don't form. You could say that it's quite literally in our DNA.

Even if you and your neighbors don't form a state of laws that serve as a consolidation of your power... the overwhelming bulk of humanity will, and that's not even something up for debate. They will, and that is as conclusive of a fact as anything you can find in a study of human history.

Anarchists are right in the sense that states are largely illusionary; the power they hold is in the fear of punishment if someone deviates too far from the accepted norm. But what anarchists either genuinely or willfully don't understand is that the illusion is necessary for the vast majority of humans to not act like angry gorillas in any given situation. It's actually a bit interesting how much faith anarchists tend to have in humanity as a whole, considering how it runs contrary to the conventional belief that they despise their fellow man.

[unknown lions fan]

Quick thought: For all of you cheering on the deplatforming of Herr Trump...

Do you think this makes it more, or less likely that we'll see more acts of "insurrection" (I'm holding back laughter even using that term...)

Celebrate your WIN!

[froot loops]

I actually don't give a shit if he can post on Twitter or not. I don't use Twitter and my free speech seems to be OK. He has plenty of avenues to have free speech. You are acting like this is the first time anybody has been banned from a service. You fellas in MAGA land like to use the word deplatform, but it's really just a banning. Anybody who has ever participated on a message board has likely participated in one where people have been banned. They were deplatformed in your words, it probably didn't stop you from continuing to post.

Had Trump not been president he probably would have been banned long ago. When everyone signs up for those services they sign a TOS. Those are not enforced uniformity at all, but it's their call. They had enough.

If you want to say the big tech companies should be regulated and not ban people, have at it and participate in the political process. Instead you wish the Capitol was in ruins and laugh at us slaves who might want to participate in the political process.

[dpatnod]

And Hitler didn't commit any crimes. He just suggested to other people they should. Why did he get such a bad rap?

[Tom]

DWT was banned, right?

[JGSpartan]

Imagine running a store and a person verbally attacks every customer who enters your building and thinking the owner should be powerless to do anything. We allow them to make decisions for their private business without complaining about silence of free speech.

Twitter is different because they have more viewers?

Why does anyone think they have a right to use someone else's platform without their permission?

It's obscenely hilarious to watch people rally against the very liberty they fight for.