Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

In case anyone is keeping score:

Among Chairman Joe's very first acts was to shutdown Keystone directly costing Americans jobs and acting to limit energy supply.

In February, he came out against the Nord 2 pipeline between Germany and Russia.

Russian hackers (likely sponsored directly by the Russian government) shutdown the huge US east coast pipeline huge spikes in prices.

Chairman Joe backs down on Nord 2 and won't do a damn thing about it (while still doing all he can to limit US energy supply). I swear to god, the Russians couldn't have drawn this up any better.

Putin's Cockholster shows his backbone.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...am-2-pipeline/

[lineygoblue]

And don't forget his good pal Guv Queen Gretch in Michigan demanding a shutdown of Line 5, and in doing so attempting to violate a long-standing treaty with Canada. Just because she wants to pander to a few loudmouth environmentalists. Why do Democrats hate pipelines? Why doesn't Joe demand the closing of the Alaska pipeline? Aren't there environmental threats with that also?

[Hannibal]

LMAO

RuSsIaN hAcKeRs StRiKe AgAiN!

[Da Geezer]

What you are seeing is not corporations reacting to changes in consumer tastes. Corporations are sacrificing money for wokeness. They have done this time and time again in recent years. Movie studios have flushed asinine amounts of money down the toilet on gender-swapped and woke reboots that have been box office bombs. Billions of dollars worth of consumer loyalty have been set on fire by long time stalwart brands like Gillette. There is no feasible business case that says that Twitter and youtube are more profitable and more valuable to stockholders when they kick Donald Trump or Alex Jones off of their platforms. And last but certainly not least, there is no sensible or rational reason for every fossil fuel major on Earth to be committing literal suicide by making carbon neutral pledges that will ensure that they are out of business in 15 years. We are in uncharted territory with capitalism -- where the people who control the purse strings in society are willing to sacrifice billions if not trillons of wealth to push Communism and Political Correctness. The wolves have tricked the sheep into lobbying on their behalf. It's a marvelous sight to behold.

Well put. just some thoughts:

- Is it more profitable to be protected from competition by the Dems than to face an actual market. The Dems couldn't care less about small business

- We have had at least two generations indoctrinated in environmental theology. I believe anything that can be remotely connected to global warming is automatically viewed by youth as evil.

- The substitution of Woke Theology for Protestant Christianity in our culture.

- An affluent China with four times the consumers that the US has is too appealing in the long run to multinationals. In order to have access to the China market, companies have to push Communism and Political Correctness. China has a long-term interest in becoming the dominant world power and the Dems are willing to trade the pax Americana in order to achieve a dominant and permanent control of the US. Working with China has long-term financial benefits to the principals in multinationals, and it has long-term political benefits to Democrats.

[Ghengis Jon]

Oh that evil Big Tech! Not pursuing profit at the expense of all else is...is...<insert nonsensical rightwing drivel here>!! It must be socialism! Suppression of free speech! It's evil Democrats!!

Permit me to violate that ringwing ethos of Thou Shalt Not Let Truth And Facts Interfere With Propaganda.

In 2020, right leaning Facebook posts were counted at 9 billion 'interactions' while during the same period left leaning posts numbered 5 billion. Today, the DailyWire, Fox News, and Trump deep throater Dan Bongino still dominate Facebook's daily rankings. Since Facebook is SUCH a supressor of conservative views, it's no wonder the Trump campaign was FB's single biggest advertiser in 2020, spending $100M during the Presidential cycle. When anti-American scum get booted from the platform for provably false and violence encouraging speech, why don't they create their own platform where they won't be (legally) moderated? Because they know it would be just another echo chamber for the mentally ill that will have no reach beyond the True Believers.

To say this is a 2nd Amendment issue is patheticly laughable. FB says if you want to stand on a box and spew hate and disinformation, holler from your own yard, not FB's. Look at right wing thought leader Der Sturmer - banned from FB but just as on-line visible and virulent as ever. Trumpster faux outrage is what drives the cries of "supression!!!"

[iam416]

To say this is a 2nd Amendment issue is patheticly laughable.

I do agree with that much. And that statement nicely sums up your analysis. You're fundamentally unserious. And, of course, still can't resist posting Trump stuff.

but, but, but...I voted for a republican once!!!!! I'm not a Progiressive!!!!

[iam416]

As, for those keeping score at home, Twitter still has DJT banned and still allows Ayatollah Khomeni to post.

[Tom W]

Didn't Khomeni die in 1989? Ghost Lives Matter!

[Dr. Strangelove]

When the guys who run that bakery in Colorado decided to not make cakes for gay weddings, they were making a knowing, conscious decision that undoubtedly hurt their business and profits for a stand on principle. I believe every conservative here defended or supported their decision.

So if a majority of YouTube's shareholders are fine with sacrificing a small bit of profit to take a principled stand against...whatever...why's that a betrayal of the capitalist ethos when turning away customers because you don't support their gay lifestyle is not?

Not touching first amendment issues yet...just this "a true capitalist wouldn't turn away customers" argument...

Will also point out that despite the huffing and puffing that YouTube is seriously damaging their profitability by de-platforming Alt Right superstars and gutter trash like Alex Jones, they had a phenomenal first quarter.

https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/youtube-revenue-q1-2021-alphabet-beats-1234961669/

[Hannibal]

A bakery is a small business whose owner or owners only answer to themselves. And in the case of the gay wedding cakes, they likely aren't turning away or offending their existing clientele. And I am guessing that there are no bakeries actively engaged in anti-bakery activism in an attempt to destroy their own businesses, analogous to what just about every fossil fuel corporation is doing nowadays.

Big banks, Twitter and Google are hugely publicly held corporations whose management has a fiduciary duty to their investors. That means all of their investors, and not just the activist 10% from Left Wing institutions like Black Rock who might be the largest shareholder, but don't form anything near a majority. But they ultimately wield power as if they were a majority because of how corporate governance works.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also, Geezer, the Democrats passed a report out of subcommittee months ago that called for the breakup of nearly all the Tech giants that have become hated on the Far Right. Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. That's the "protection" the Dems were offering Big Tech. Led by Jim Jordan, not one Republican voted to approve of the plan, because it could lead to antitrust breakups outside of Tech and didn't put enough emphasis on the "silencing" of conservatives voices.

No offense but a lot of Republicans talk a big, big game when it comes to holding Big Tech to account but when the time comes for action, they shrink back and complain that the Dems are being partisan.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2021/04/23/jim-jordan-dissents-from-antitrust-report-794856

[iam416]

So if a majority of YouTube's shareholders are fine with sacrificing a small bit of profit to take a principled stand against...whatever...why's that a betrayal of the capitalist ethos when turning away customers because you don't support their gay lifestyle is not?

Correct. As I noted yesterday, this, in theory, ought to create tremendous market opportunities for shrewd businesses.

However, as I also noted yesterday, I tend to view these things in two buckets based on how competitive a market is. Afterall, market oppotunities can only be taken if the market is competitive. That's been, e.g., Alabam"Alum's" argument for awhile re Twitter (to name one). At least until "big tech" worked in conjunction to effectively (and, admittedly, temporarily) fuck over Parler.

So, I don't particularly care if Coke wants to go Woke as Fuck. They're in a hypercompetitive market -- even if they are giant in the market, the market is still very competitive. Now, can the same be said for other companies? Delta, e.g., in Atlanta, is probably near that edge just because of the convenience of their flights. So, one point where I disagree with Hannibal is that certain companies actually aren't choosing Woke over $$$$. They can be "political" and still retain their market base because, well, e.g., how else are you going to fly from Atlanta to Milwaukee direct?

So, that's my response setting aside First Amendment issues (which, as I've said previously, I think are at least problematic as platforms edge towards monopolistic power).

[Hannibal]

opposites-attract-comic0.png?fit=1000%2C1000.png

[Dr. Strangelove]

And I would say that Jon is correct on something: Facebook. There's an account on twitter that keeps track of the 10 most shared articles on Facebook and every single day at least 7 out of 10, often 10 out of 10, are from conservative websites. Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire, Breitbart, Dan Bongino are all mainstays. MSM sources almost never.

[Hannibal]

Talent -- stop being a sucker and falling for Saul Alinksy 101

Rules for Radicals #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Leftists like DSL do not make "free market" arguments in good faith, as evidenced by the fact that they have argued and agitated for government intervention into the freedoms of businesses (of all sizes -- big and small) to choose their clientele, employees, and pay scale for well over five decades now. And they have been successful at almost every turn. You cannot make a free market argument here until there is a free market for everyone. Right now we free markets for the actions of massive corporations that follow the Democrat agenda, and strict regulation and intervention of everyone and everything else.