Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

The USSC Ginsburg replacement drama is good theater, nothing else. Turmp will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the D's will flail, raise a bunch of superfluous BS about her catholic believes and the Senate will confirm her nomination. Drama over. For me, it's a good ending as the court will be, for better or worse, pretty conservative. With Biden the next POTUS and Harris working to advance a leftist legislative agenda they'll be plenty of battles ahead over gun rights and affirmative action to name just two on a long list.

Meanwhile we have a presidential election, a botched response to the pandemic, mostly involving testing and tracking at this point and an impending economic implosion. It's mindboggling to me that there isn't a clear path to another stimulus package. No credible economist or banker is saying we don't need one.

On the COVID front, I do believe that increasing case #s globally are a problem mainly because the economic fall-out related to consumer and business confidence is taking a huge hit. Businesses trying to look forward in this environment, invest, hire and return to profitability just isn't going to happen. They'll turtle and go into survival mode. As far as disease burden is concerned, the impact, while not insignificant is, as usual, not adequately dealt with by the press. The drum beat of rising case numbers, taken out of context, mischaracterizes COVID impact. That is harmful and that is an understatement. In the US back to college is getting much of the blame. The reality is that, for the most part, outbreaks are being dealt with by colleges pretty well - there are exceptions but, by-in-large, there are plans to handle outbreaks and despite the hand-wringing from the press, they are being executed. More importantly, the disease burden in this cohort is exceptionally low.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Best pollster in Iowa is showing the race there a dead heat tie. Men are voting 57-36 for Trump. Women are voting 57-37 for Biden. Biden has a 12 point lead with Independents.

This poll, however, was conducted last week entirely before RBG died. So if you think that will influence things, you might give Trump a few points edge at least.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2020/09/22/iowa-poll-donald-trump-joe-biden-tied-iowa-presidential-race-2020/5839311002/

[THE_WIZARD_]

Further proof of how stupid most women are...

[Cody_Russell]

Sounds like Rs have the votes to get the SCOTUS replacement in.
No problems there until MSNBC finds "something" about ACB's high school boyfriend.

[Hannibal]

Sounds like Rs have the votes to get the SCOTUS replacement in.
No problems there until MSNBC finds "something" about ACB's high school boyfriend.

She and her friends gang raped him but nobody reported it until now.

[THE_WIZARD_]

fuckin' Trump

[Hannibal]

Talent -- a good column from Clay Travis on social media censorship

https://www.outkick.com/twitter-labe...column-sexist/

Who is it that ultimately makes the decision on publisher vs. platform? The FCC? Congress?

[Mike]

Romney supports voting on SCOTUS vacancy providing McConnell with enough to push the nominee through. Let the gnashing of teeth begin!

[iam416]

I've had this debate on several occasions. And, IMO, it's fundamentally one of how you characterize these platforms. I've argued that at some point they become quasi-public and thus subject to First Amendment issues. That's an admittedly aggressive read of the Constitution but I think it's an accurate read of the facts on the ground.

I think the preferred approach is obviously market-based, then legislative and finally judicial.

I also don't think there's any question what's happening on Twitter in terms of who they censor. It's obviously content-based and almost always conservatives being shut down. But, again, I'm not sure how you actually address this. It may be that most legally-justifiable approach is through the FTC. Break up the massive platforms and create a fairly competitive marketplace and let that sort itself out.

[Hannibal]

Romney supports voting on SCOTUS vacancy providing McConnell with enough to push the nominee through. Let the gnashing of teeth begin!

Does he support just having a vote or does he support the likely candidates?

[lineygoblue]

She and her friends gang raped him but nobody reported it until now.

dang... where was I when she and her friends were out gang raping innocent men? ....

... oh yes, .. living with my wife and going to work every day ... I'm old enough to be her dad ...

[Hannibal]

I've had this debate on several occasions. And, IMO, it's fundamentally one of how you characterize these platforms. I've argued that at some point they become quasi-public and thus subject to First Amendment issues. That's an admittedly aggressive read of the Constitution but I think it's an accurate read of the facts on the ground.

I think the preferred approach is obviously market-based, then legislative and finally judicial.

I also don't think there's any question what's happening on Twitter in terms of who they censor. It's obviously content-based and almost always conservatives being shut down. But, again, I'm not sure how you actually address this. It may be that most legally-justifiable approach is through the FTC. Break up the massive platforms and create a fairly competitive marketplace and let that sort itself out.

There's a lot to unpack with this, but to suffice it to say, I don't put any value in the "free markets" counter-arguments make in favor of Facebook, Google, and Twatter, for a variety of reasons. Including but not limited to:

1. All massive oligopolies and monopolies face stiff regulation. This was something that was accepted as necessary and normal back in the late 1800s. Regulating what Facebook and Google can and can't do is a long overdue catch-up to get those entities on the same page as your local gas company and your phone company. And even non-monopoly businesses face regulations to make sure that they aren't ripping off or poisoning their customers.

2. The exact same people doing this censorship were arguing in favor of Net Neutrality only a few years ago, because we needed Net Neutrality to prevent Comcast from censoring content. Turns out, that was projection. It's Google and Twatter that want to censor the content. Comcast and Time Warner aren't the ones deplatforming anyone. This is Orwellian type dishonesty and double speak. (These are also the people that have endlessly rammed Nazi book burning imagery down our throats all of our lives. Turns out -- it's the Left who are the real book burners).

3. The tech companies don't even make money censoring Conservatives. Conservatives like Stefan Molyneaux make money for the platforms that they are on. Youtube loses money by banning Conservatives, and uses their monopoly power to make enough money to subsidize their censorship. This is a completely different dynamic at work than, say, talk radio not hosting Left Wing content. The reason why talk radio does not host Left Wing content is because nobody listens to it. It's unprofitable for them. I wouldn't ask somebody to platform somebody who makes them lose money.

4. There is arguably no more justified intervention into free markets than making sure that the populace is well-informed and that dissenters able to reach listeners and ears on the same platform that everyone else uses. Especially given the pathological dishonesty of the Left and their ability to incite the public to violence by crafting false narratives.

5. Even if Twatter is not the Town Square, Conservatives are more or less banned from the actual Town Square now. If you say "All LIves Matter" in public, you are likely to get your head bashed in with a brick. The cops will not protect you or help you. If you defend yourself, you will go to prison. We are living in a state of anarcho-tyranny right now that has eliminated in-person free speech for people who are not part of the BLM/Antifa megalith. We need a virtual town square more than ever.

6. Big tech is completely dishonest and untransparent about why they censor. They manipulate search results, shadowban content, and even erase it without notification or explanation. And that is on top of all of their incredibly shady data management. They don't censor Conservatives because they do anything illegal or make direct threats to anyone. They censor Conservatives because they spread Hatefacts, and they are getting increasingly brazen in how they do this. This isn't a traditional argument about whether vulgar or hateful speech should be censored.

7. The "free market" argument has a twist. Lots of people invested years of their lives building profitable businesses as part of a partnership with outlets like youtube, with the expectation that youtube would enforce their terms of service fairly and transparently. By not doing this, outlets like youtube violated their own terms of service and violated an implied contract with both its users and its content providers. Cutting off youtube access to a virtual business would be like cutting off electricity to a real-life business. Last I checked, AEP can't turn your lights off because you voted for Trump. Companies should at least be compelled to enforce their terms of service consistently, even in the free-est of free markets.

8. Left Wing propaganda is already heavily subsidized by public education.

9, And finally -- this is the biggest reason -- we don't fucking have free markets in this country anymore. Anywhere The government has been endlessly weaponized in favor of the Left against free markets for 50 years. Most of it has been done in the interest of redistributive "fairness", and not out of the public interest. It's time to accept this and to embrace weaponizing the government in favor of the right. Step 1 -- enforce free speech.

[Ghengis Jon]

The previous pronouncement is a public service as to the dangers of doubling up your medication. Should paranoid delusions continue, discontinue the medication and consult your doctor immediately.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well from everything I read the government's about to open a massive anti-trust lawsuit against Google and there could be some traction there.

Why does anyone specifically have a "right" to express opinion on Twitter versus Parler or Gab or the hundreds of other social media platforms?

[Hannibal]

One of the violent goons that Kyle Rittenhouse shot in self defense is getting to do the media rounds. They are grilling him with some vicious cross-examination.

LOL Just kidding. Of course they are making him a sympathetic figure. And these people wonder why they are less trusted than Trump.

He is a convicted felon who I'm pretty sure is not allowed to own a gun, yet he has not been charged despite photo and video evidence of him holding the gun and aiming it an Rittenhouse right before Rittenhouse blows away his bicep. Meanwhile, Kyle Rittenhouse continues to languish in jail.

SHOEnGFQfS.jpg