General US Politics

[Interdimensional Observer]

So, about the Southern District of New York Attorney- Geoffrey Berman. I heard that currently, his position against being forced out is strong. However, Berman could lose some of that precious legal high ground if the Senate approved Trump's pick for the job, because Berman was chosen by the courts when Trump failed to pick someone. 

Whats the chance McConnell could bum rush Trump's nominee for his Department of Injustice into the job?

The person who explained this said that the necessary Senate hearings would give a platform to Berman where he could air strong reasons why Trump's pick is a bad choice. Thus, McConnell wouldn't want Senate hearings and to get involved in this spat. Yet, McConnell had zero issues lobotomizing the Senate impeachment hearings, and has forced through other unsavory Trump appointments.

[Rezzy]

1 minute ago, Tryhard said:

I've rarely seen any conservatives that care about monopolies, they are usually the ones to almost always vote in favour of corporations.

I mean, I agree from a left-wing perspective, but it's kind of funny to me that conservatives are still advocating for public utility in this particular case.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian, so I'm not for anything gaining that much control, whether it be the government or a private corporation.

[Tryhard]

20 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian, so I'm not for anything gaining that much control, whether it be the government or a private corporation.

I would still consider a libertarian a conservative, just a different type, to be honest. One that is more concerned with personal freedom and being anti-war.

But like, what have libertarians and traditional conservatives done to combat monopolies? That's very rare.

(I understand that libertarians haven't actually held power much like progressives, but it seems like they don't have much qualms with it)

EDIT: It's also worth noting that the term 'libertarian' was originally used to refer to left-wing anarchist and marxist types, but was corrupted into what is now called libertarian in the United States exclusively. It's always rather confusing to me to discuss being from Europe because that term does not mean what Americans use it as.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

35 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

That argument loses its case once they become monopolies, so either trust busting or extending First Amendment protections to open platforms would be the solution, like telephones.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc are all competing with each other. Are they really monopolies then? Are you in favor of regulations splitting up monopolies? What if they weren't monopolies according to whatever your logic is, would you still be in favor of deplatforming?

Them being monopolies is literally not the point and is completely orthogonal to the point.

45 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc are de facto monopolies at this point, and I'm very hesitant to applaud them deplatforming people en masse for bad opinions.  China has an official social credit score, and I want nothing even close to that taking effect in the west.  I don't buy the argument that everybody that holds a controversial opinion is arguing in bad faith, and I don't want to start saying which opinions are and are not acceptable to hold, because that leads to an increasingly smaller and smaller echo chamber.

Okay, racism is not a controversial opinion. It's a bad and harmful opinion to a free society. We are literally talking about racism (and discrimination in general).

If you think anti-racism leads to an echo chamber then you're speaking solely in naivetes and in a vacuum that we don't live in.

China's social credit score has absolutely zero to do with tech companies barring people from using their services.

Quote

Sure, I'm mostly white, so I don't experience much racism on a day to day basis, but racism isn't the only kind of bigotry, and I'm a member of one of the most hated groups in the US right now.  It's not exactly something one can hide in real life, but I didn't even openly talk about it online much until recently, because being told to go kill yourself, or worse, is not fun.  JK Rowling has been in the news a lot lately for transphobic tweets.  Sure, I don't like what she said, and I'll even make my opinion known about that, but I'm not going to try to get her deplatformed from Twitter, nor will I agree with any attempts to do so by others.

I mean, JK Rowling is experiencing massive pushback, but being anti-Trans is not controversial, it's straight up bad and hateful. And that shit spreads.

I'm aware of what transpeople go through. "I'm part of x discriminated group and even I am against deplatforming racists! Is not an argument. Hateful public figures will remain hateful, and they have a greater chance of increasing followers (which, bigotry is antithetical to a democracy) with dogwhistles than if you just make them hide somewhere.

I mean, being an American libertarian you're surely against transgender protections too?

Edited June 20, 2020 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

Like, to give an example of what I mean:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/bbnh38/what_is_the_libertarian_position_on_monopolies/

Self-described libertarians seem to have no problems with monopolies as long as they are not a result of government interference. Which they aren't in this case.

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I mean, being an American libertarian you're surely against transgender protections too?

Protected class laws have just been in effect for long enough to people to 'accept' them as the norm. But I'm sure they had their opponents when they were implemented in order to prevent people from denying service to people based on sexual orientation, religion, etc.

But we still have the arguments about whether that Christian bakery should be able to deny service to gay couples so I guess maybe it's not as obvious as I think.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

14 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

But we still have the arguments about whether that Christian bakery should be able to deny service to gay couples so I guess maybe it's not as obvious as I think.

It's a fairly obvious argument. Neil Gorsuch actually made it eloquently

If you deny service to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, it's sex / gender discrimination. You're not denying service to a man for marrying a woman, why deny service to a woman marrying a woman? And then there's racial protections.

The flipside is like, say, if someone wants you to make a nazi cake or a BLM cake. But that's not any sort of discrimination against a race, that's just giving distaste to a political movement the baker disagrees with. That's not race, gender, or sexual discrimination.

It's not a difficult debate. In fact, this is the argument that held up transgender protections.

(I genuinely don't believe in protected classes, I believe government should enforce laws on discrimination, but private companies and private citizens have a social obligation to deplatform racists).

Edited June 20, 2020 by Lord Raven

[Etrurian emperor]

49 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian, so I'm not for anything gaining that much control, whether it be the government or a private corporation.

I don't really think you can have it both ways. What typically stops a private corporation gaining too much power is regulations set by the government and in order to do so a government needs at least some power.  A lack of government power almost inherently increases the power of private corporations. 

[Rezzy]

59 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I don't really think you can have it both ways. What typically stops a private corporation gaining too much power is regulations set by the government and in order to do so a government needs at least some power.  A lack of government power almost inherently increases the power of private corporations. 

That's why I'm a libertarian, not an An Cap.  I know some government is necessary.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc are all competing with each other. Are they really monopolies then? Are you in favor of regulations splitting up monopolies? What if they weren't monopolies according to whatever your logic is, would you still be in favor of deplatforming?

Them being monopolies is literally not the point and is completely orthogonal to the point.

Okay, racism is not a controversial opinion. It's a bad and harmful opinion to a free society. We are literally talking about racism (and discrimination in general).

If you think anti-racism leads to an echo chamber then you're speaking solely in naivetes and in a vacuum that we don't live in.

China's social credit score has absolutely zero to do with tech companies barring people from using their services.

I mean, JK Rowling is experiencing massive pushback, but being anti-Trans is not controversial, it's straight up bad and hateful. And that shit spreads.

I'm aware of what transpeople go through. "I'm part of x discriminated group and even I am against deplatforming racists! Is not an argument. Hateful public figures will remain hateful, and they have a greater chance of increasing followers (which, bigotry is antithetical to a democracy) with dogwhistles than if you just make them hide somewhere.

I mean, being an American libertarian you're surely against transgender protections too?

Being anti-trans is controversial.  It's not uniformly accepted to be trans, but not everybody is anti-trans either, thus it being controversial.  Free speech means have the right to express unpopular opinions.  And if an oligarchy of companies decides to deplatform someone for unpopular speech, that's pretty much the same as silencing them in the digital age.

I don't like giving anybody the power to decide what is an acceptable opinion is, or the line of what being hateful is, short of calling for violence,  Opinions considered normal today would have been considered extreme 20 years ago and vice versa.  20 years ago DOMA and Don't ask, don't tell were the law of the land, but if a band of companies had decided that being pro-LGBT was immoral and decided to mass silence people, it would not have allowed for the idea to gain traction.  Silencing people just removes any chance for discussion.

[Lord Raven]

4 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

Being anti-trans is controversial.  It's not uniformly accepted to be trans, but not everybody is anti-trans either, thus it being controversial.  Free speech means have the right to express unpopular opinions.  And if an oligarchy of companies decides to deplatform someone for unpopular speech, that's pretty much the same as silencing them in the digital age.

Stop calling bigotry an unpopular opinion. I'm specifically talking about bigotry and the role of private companies. I even asked you to look at a hypothetical, you're just obtusely sidestepping the question.

6 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

Silencing people just removes any chance for discussion.

This is why I asked you to respond to the argument of the anti-Semite.

Stating platitudes is not an argument.

7 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

I don't like giving anybody the power to decide what is an acceptable opinion is, or the line of what being hateful is, short of calling for violence,  Opinions considered normal today would have been considered extreme 20 years ago and vice versa.

Then why are you a libertarian? Everyone has power to silence opinions within their domain.

If the domain is more accessible than others, the onus is on the manager to remove racist speech. There's no fucking dialogue that will convince someone to stop being racist, and people saw George Floyd's death, the way the media portrays protesters as thugs, and still put up blinders to systemic racism.

Quote

20 years ago DOMA and Don't ask, don't tell were the law of the land, but if a band of companies had decided that being pro-LGBT was immoral and decided to mass silence people, it would not have allowed for the idea to gain traction.

They were silenced and still gained traction. They were even prosecuted by the government and shot at for protesting. You should know this.

But the point is that the government shouldn't do it. Social media is not government.

[Rezzy]

25 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Stop calling bigotry an unpopular opinion. I'm specifically talking about bigotry and the role of private companies. I even asked you to look at a hypothetical, you're just obtusely sidestepping the question.

This is why I asked you to respond to the argument of the anti-Semite.

Stating platitudes is not an argument.

Then why are you a libertarian? Everyone has power to silence opinions within their domain.

If the domain is more accessible than others, the onus is on the manager to remove racist speech. There's no fucking dialogue that will convince someone to stop being racist, and people saw George Floyd's death, the way the media portrays protesters as thugs, and still put up blinders to systemic racism.

They were silenced and still gained traction. They were even prosecuted by the government and shot at for protesting. You should know this.

But the point is that the government shouldn't do it. Social media is not government.

I don't think this argument is going anywhere.  You once engaged with me in good faith, but I no longer think that is the case here.  This place has become an echo chamber, and it makes me sad.

[Lord Raven]

20 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

I don't think this argument is going anywhere.  You once engaged with me in good faith, but I no longer think that is the case here.  This place has become an echo chamber, and it makes me sad.

I don't think stating platitudes is an argument.

But you keep labeling bigotry as controversial and not a fundamental breach of right to exist.

There's a massive difference and your refusal to argue it doesn't make it an echo chamber. I don't actually believe you're engaging in good faith if all you have is platitudes, and when you say "I'm a libertarian but I disagree with private companies regulating on their own platform."

Because nobody is arguing the government should prosecute a protected class. Weak arguments don't make something an echo chamber, and an echo chamber is the excuse people bring up so people don't have their ideas challenged. This is the exact gaslighting people against racism have had to deal with, because conflating racism with shit like 911 truthers and the birtherism viewpoint is insanity.

You're intentionally framing racism as a controversial viewpoint to strawman and accusing others of bad faith arguing. Don't give me that nonsense.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Lord Raven

[Rezzy]

1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

I don't think stating platitudes is an argument.

But you keep labeling bigotry as controversial and not a fundamental breach of right to exist.

There's a massive difference and your refusal to argue it doesn't make it an echo chamber. I don't think you're engaging in good faith if all you have is platitudes.

That's being disingenuous.  I've explained my reasoning, I'm not just repeating platitudes.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I also think there's a difference between firing someone for being gay and saying you don't think being gay aligns with your religious principles.

[Lord Raven]

Just now, Rezzy said:

That's being disingenuous.  I've explained my reasoning, I'm not just repeating platitudes.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I also think there's a difference between firing someone for being gay and saying you don't think being gay aligns with your religious principles.

Re read with my edit.

And there's a difference between saying that and being anti-gay. Absolutely nobody is disputing this, either.

You're throwing strawmans at me and calling me disingenuous.

[Rezzy]

1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

Re read with my edit.

And there's a difference between saying that and being anti-gay. Absolutely nobody is disputing this, either.

You're throwing strawmans at me and calling me disingenuous.

I've been beaten up and called a girl because people thought I was gay.  I've had to deal with stereotypes, but I don't want to take away people's ability to voice their opinions, just because there are extremists in every ideological camp.  I don't think I'm going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.

I'm not a libertarian not because I agree lock-stock-and-barrel with everything the Libertarian Party, they just agree with most, but not all, of my beliefs, more so than the Democrats or Republicans do at least.

[Lord Raven]

Nobody is taking it away. They're removing it from their platform.

There's a massive, massive difference. Claiming that I'm not taking you in good faith because I acknowledge this difference is disingenuous.

What you've been through is horrible. But having gone through a lot doesn't make anyone's point more valid. I'm going to advise you to look into the Rohingya genocide and how the way hate is allowed to spread on Facebook is contributing to it because then the government refuses to go against its people. But because of free speech, Facebook shouldn't deplatform it, by your logic.

These are literal genocide advocates. They aren't even threatening violence, there's propaganda being spread and paid for because of this, and it reaches and entrenches. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

51 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Nobody is taking it away. They're removing it from their platform.

There's a massive, massive difference. Claiming that I'm not taking you in good faith because I acknowledge this difference is disingenuous.

What you've been through is horrible. But having gone through a lot doesn't make anyone's point more valid. I'm going to advise you to look into the Rohingya genocide and how the way hate is allowed to spread on Facebook is contributing to it because then the government refuses to go against its people. But because of free speech, Facebook shouldn't deplatform it, by your logic.

These are literal genocide advocates. They aren't even threatening violence, there's propaganda being spread and paid for because of this, and it reaches and entrenches. 

I'm going to stop you here, because Rezzy made it very clear that speech inciting violence falls outside of her definition of free speech.

[Lord Raven]

You don't have to incite violence to advocate genocide.

Ever heard of dogwhistling? Ever heard of those people who post 1350 stats to advocate black people are genetically predisposed to violence? What about those people who claim the blacks deserve it? That's not a call to violence, but it's giving a massive platform to racism.

If you could rationally discuss racism, then bigotry wouldn't be an issue since bigotry is ultimately an irrational thing.

Deplatforming is not silencing. She keeps reframing my argument as silencing. It's silencing on a specific platform, but nothing in a legal sense.

I've made it clear that I'm advocating deplatforming in private venues and deplatforming in social contexts. I am getting first amendment arguments despite this not being about the government. The first amendment already covers calls to violence.

There is a massive difference between what I am arguing and what Rezzy is responding to.

[Captain Karnage]

 

4 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I mean, being an American libertarian you're surely against transgender protections too?

That's pretty bold of you to assume that.

Just because someone falls into a spot on a political map doesn't mean that they automatically believe what the majority of people in that group believe.

[Lord Raven]

Just now, Captain Karnage said:

 

That's pretty bold of you to assume that.

Just because someone falls into a spot on a political map doesn't mean that they automatically believe what the majority of people in that group believe.

The logic is to advocate private citizens and platforms do whatever they want according to their own morals, but thanks for skipping a page of discussion to attack my wording. It really was more nuanced than that if you read my arguments instead of feeling compelled to respond to one thing.

What happened to the red hat in your avatar?

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

You don't have to incite violence to advocate genocide.

Ever heard of dogwhistling? Ever heard of those people who post 1350 stats to advocate black people are genetically predisposed to violence? What about those people who claim the blacks deserve it? That's not a call to violence, but it's giving a massive platform to racism.

If you could rationally discuss racism, then bigotry wouldn't be an issue since bigotry is ultimately an irrational thing.

Deplatforming is not silencing. She keeps reframing my argument as silencing. It's silencing on a specific platform, but nothing in a legal sense.

I've made it clear that I'm advocating deplatforming in private venues and deplatforming in social contexts. I am getting first amendment arguments despite this not being about the government. The first amendment already covers calls to violence.

There is a massive difference between what I am arguing and what Rezzy is responding to.

Not if you're willing to think about it honestly.  Where are the big places that people go in order to interact with others?  What if they all decided that Mormonism is the de facto religion and screw everyone else that dares to advocate otherwise?  While it's not the government silencing, it is a way of shaping opinion.  Just because their values align with yours at the moment doesn't mean that it's a good thing.  It's something that must be heavily monitored.  It's also why I think fact-checking the president's tweets without deleting them is a damn good compromise.

[Lord Raven]

14 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Not if you're willing to think about it honestly. 

I have thought about it honestly. Don't make that assumption that I haven't. I'm sick of being fucking gaslighted every time I point out racism and ways to deal with bigotry.

Four years ago I got suspended for calling tuvarkz a racist because he used charged language to basically shit on Muslims. And yet, nothing happened to him. This is some minor shit, but that's exactly what I'm talking about. Not deplatforming anti-Muslim (note: NOT anti-islamic) and harmful rhetoric is being complicit. But you guys went after the guy who pointed it out instead, and hired a red hat as a mod. I have every reason to assume I am not being honestly dealt with, instead.

Now, let me go for the rest of the paragraph.

Quote

Where are the big places that people go in order to interact with others?  What if they all decided that Mormonism is the de facto religion and screw everyone else that dares to advocate otherwise?  While it's not the government silencing, it is a way of shaping opinion.  Just because their values align with yours at the moment doesn't mean that it's a good thing.  It's something that must be heavily monitored.  It's also why I think fact-checking the president's tweets without deleting them is a damn good compromise.

Racism is comparable to religion now?

So you think being Christian is like being a racist?

There's no "views align with mine" going on here. Unless you actively think Racism is a viewpoint of the same degree as Christianity.

I even asked if somehow these social media companies split up into multiple things and outlawed racism in their platform, but I got no response. Somehow an oligarchy shouldn't do things to limit their platform, but also a smaller forum shouldn't either?

Meanwhile there's black people being slaughtered by the police, lynchings being reported as suicide, and hatred and bigotry allowed to fester on Facebook and even being encouraged on various platforms to pretend nothing is happening... To portray people as thugs then accuse them of not doing anything... (as you can see by the anti-racist being suspended for pointing it out)

In all honesty, its not even about silencing individuals on Facebook. It's about deplatforming news sources that are harmful to the public debate. It's about deplatforming public figures like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos who had wide reach and influence, yet no longer do.

There's a reason Germany bans Holocaust denial. I don't think we should go that far, but to me this is not holding society and private institutions responsible for the racist bullshit and rhetoric they've created. And encouraging people not to hold them responsible!

You wantr race riots again or do you want to actually start educating the population on bigotry before they are entrenched? Because the entrenching of bigotry is what got Trump elected and put us in the middle of a fucking pandemic that is disproportionately killing black people.

The first amendment protects us from the government. Everything else is fair game. There's research and anecdotes to back me up about how deplatforming works to combat racism. This country and its people haven't done anything close to taking responsibility for the racism in its structure, and not deplatforming racists implies they're fine with that structure staying so long as their bottom line is fine.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

Just now, Lord Raven said:

I have thought about it honestly. Don't make that assumption that I haven't. I'm sick of being fucking gaslighted every time I point out racism.

Four years ago I got suspended for calling tuvarkz a racist because he used charged language to basically shit on Muslims. And yet, nothing happened to him. This is some minor shit, but that's exactly what I'm talking about. Not deplatforming anti-Muslim (note: NOT anti-islamic) and harmful rhetoric is being complicit. But you guys went after the guy who pointed it out instead, and hired a red hat as a mod. I have every reason to assume I am not being honestly dealt with, instead.

Now, let me go for the rest of the paragraph.

I'm pointing out why I disagree with your stance, which is you're supporting this because it aligns with your personal opinions.  That's not gaslighting, that's me telling you to seriously consider how you'd feel if the exact same principles you're espousing were employed on opinions that you absolutely can't stand.

Unless you can understand that, going into the rest of what you said will be a waste of both of our times.

[Lord Raven]

You just compared Christianity to Racism. I'm not sure why racism is just an opinion in this context.

Until you can understand why bigotry is not just an opinion, which I'm 100000% sure you do, I'm not sure you can say you're not gaslighting. Racism being just an opinion is nullifying how that was wide reaching enough that police and the government brutalize the black community, and allowed the populace to be complicit by letting them create their own forums to invite and incite hate on platforms like reddit and Facebook and Twitter and all that.

Btw getting suspended for calling an islamophobe a racist is gaslighting. I'm brown, you know. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

7 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

You just compared Christianity to Racism. I'm not sure why racism is just an opinion in this context.

Until you can understand why bigotry is not just an opinion, which I'm 100000% sure you do, I'm not sure you can say you're not gaslighting. Racism being just an opinion is nullifying how that was wide reaching enough that police and the government brutalize the black community, and allowed the populace to be complicit by letting them create their own forums to invite and incite hate on platforms like reddit and Facebook and Twitter and all that.

Btw getting suspended for calling an islamophobe a racist is gaslighting. I'm brown, you know. 

No, I'm trying to show you the flaw in your opinion.  You're hung up on the religion/race aspect.  I think both are equally serious problems (see: the fact that abortion is considered a political issue), which is why I use the interchangeably.

[Lord Raven]

What are you calling my stance?

Because I think it's pretty clear. Deplatform racists. Reforming racists doesn't work. Engaging rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones in honest dialogue doesn't fucking work, and it's been shown over and over again.

And the fact that they can rope people in and radicalize is a major issue that you guys are ignoring. Because it's been ignored and not dealt with and you end up with the death of Heather Heyer in the Charlottesville protest and the president saying there's good people on both sides of a march where one side is white supremacists.