La-La Land goes further off the deep end.

Status
Not open for further replies.

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
Except it is part of thought stance that is ALSO trying to cleanse what is taught because it is offensive. And, sorry, it is also behind 'cleansing' the internet as well. One only doesn't see that, if they believe "hate speech" should be banned, and are against free speech. Plain and simple really.
That's just total BS and reactionary. History can not be erased in any of these ways. Get real, no one is cleansing the internet here. China and Iran, that's a different story. We don't have an autocratic government.

A minority view that's extreme can't come close to erasing history. It takes the buy in of the majority to effect major changes as you suggest. Homogeneous societies can fall prey to this, however, ours is far from being homogeneous, and that's a good thing.

It's the tyranny of the majority that you should be afraid of, not the other way around. Native Americans, along with slaves and their descendants did in fact have much of their cultures and history erased by the majority. It takes generations to do along with the power of military force... you don't see the opposite ever happening.

BTW....There are far more rights than just the First Amendment.
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,664
Reaction score
20,849
It is not the government that is attempting to change history. What other amendments would qualify here, in your opinion?
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
It is not the government that is attempting to change history. What other amendments would qualify here, in your opinion?
No other group has the power to do so. It takes the buy in of the government and the majority of the people to change history. It's not accomplished by any other means.

Nobody is forcing you to leave your ancestral lands by force, changing your name to appeal to the majority, forcing you to learn a language to be used daily that is not yours, or forcing you to worship that which you normally don't. That's how culture and history gets annihilated. When this starts happening you have a real gripe.

All the amendments are equal in power, it's not just the First Amendment that is important. They all work to balance things out justly.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
35,884
Reaction score
70,186
Except it is part of thought stance that is ALSO trying to cleanse what is taught because it is offensive. And, sorry, it is also behind 'cleansing' the internet as well. One only doesn't see that, if they believe "hate speech" should be banned, and are against free speech. Plain and simple really.
I see much of this not as a cleansing, but a correction. Enough of all the "states rights" and "glorious lost cause" noise. Maybe it is time to stop propagating that propaganda as well.
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,664
Reaction score
20,849
Censorship is a great way to change history. And the government does not need to be involved for this to occur. Anyone who questions the reasons for changing holiday names/removing statues is generally labeled as hateful or fascist and those viewpoints appear to be suppressed in the media. The government is merely a tool to bring about change and it is doubtful that they have their crap together well enough to institute censorship. It is happening, though; driven by the uninformed and misguided.

Google is currently strangling anything they consider 'hate speech' or any views they choose not to agree with. Google currently has one of the most widely used video platforms that it is now policing for content. When opposing views become squashed, it is CENSORSHIP. Once we start down the slippery slope, we have greater potential to become totalitarian.

I am guessing that there are no other equal amendments that apply here. I would welcome your opinion on amendments that you believe should apply here.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
35,884
Reaction score
70,186
It is not the government that is attempting to change history. What other amendments would qualify here, in your opinion?
If a town or city wants to take down a statue, it's their right to.

Let's say they have a "states right" to do it. Let's call it a First Amendment right to express their view in their own town. And the KKK and the Nazis can stay the hell out.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
Censorship is a great way to change history. And the government does not need to be involved for this to occur. Anyone who questions the reasons for changing holiday names/removing statues is generally labeled as hateful or fascist and those viewpoints appear to be suppressed in the media. The government is merely a tool to bring about change and it is doubtful that they have their crap together well enough to institute censorship. It is happening, though; driven by the uninformed and misguided.

Google is currently strangling anything they consider 'hate speech' or any views they choose not to agree with. Google currently has one of the most widely used video platforms that it is now policing for content. When opposing views become squashed, it is CENSORSHIP. Once we start down the slippery slope, we have greater potential to become totalitarian.

I am guessing that there are no other equal amendments that apply here. I would welcome your opinion on amendments that you believe should apply here.
Google is a private company. No one forces the use of google it is all voluntary. You might as well throw in MLP for that matter as politics and religious discussion is censored as well.

If you believe that Free Speech is being effected, that is what the court systems are for, to test against constitutionality.

Your 'slippery slope' argument is indeed a leading logical fallacy that gets passed around often. Slippery slopes are irrational ideas about the future that hasn't happened yet, or may not even happen, as such, they are based on fear, not reason.
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,664
Reaction score
20,849
If a town or city wants to take down a statue, it's their right to.

Let's say they have a "states right" to do it. Let's call it a First Amendment right to express their view in their own town. And the KKK and the Nazis can stay the hell out.
And that is acceptable if that is what they have chosen. Random acts of destruction of property is not the path and this has happened. I respect their right to free speech. I do not condone or agree with the KKK or Nazis, but I respect their right to free speech even though it is repulsive to me. I find groups from the other end of the spectrum equally as repulsive, but I respect their right to speech.
 

PRCJ

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
455
Reaction score
954
Wew.

Google (really Alphabet), with its monopoly on the exchange of information has not in the past manipulated, nor will it ever manipulate the information people can access. Nor is it working directly with nation governments to that same end. Of course facebook is equally innocent of such alligations.

Amirite?
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
35,884
Reaction score
70,186
Something needs to be clarified here.
The 1st Amendment says the government will not jail you for having an opinion or voicing it (short of sedition or incitement). That does not mean everyone has an innate right to spew hateful shit (lately it's way too much Nazi shit in some places) everywhere and be tolerated. Other people DO have the right to "tell you all about yourself". Private boards and services DO have a right to control what happens "in their house".
I LIKE the idea of Google, Twitter, Facebook etc refusing to be a "not so secret" gathering place for the Klan and the Nazis. I LIKE the idea they will not be able to use these sites to plan and organize their "gatherigs". I LIKE the idea that they may ALSO finally act on all the Russian "bots".
It's about damn time.
And it does not violate the 1st Amendment.
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,664
Reaction score
20,849
Google is a private company. No one forces the use of google it is all voluntary. You might as well throw in MLP for that matter as politics and religious discussion is censored as well.
When a corporate has a monopoly on a dissemination of information, it is censorship. MLP does not have a monopoly on forums or even Les Pauls for that matter.

If you believe that Free Speech is being effected, .
Yes, I believe free speech is being 'affected'.

Your 'slippery slope' argument is indeed a leading logical fallacy that gets passed around often. Slippery slopes are irrational ideas about the future that hasn't happened yet, or may not even happen, as such, they are based on fear, not reason.
What is irrational about facts?
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,664
Reaction score
20,849
That does not mean everyone has an innate right to spew hateful shit (lately it's way too much Nazi shit in some places) everywhere and be tolerated.
They actually do have the right to say it. Without being physically attacked or prevented from speaking.

Other people DO have the right to "tell you all about yourself".
Yes they do. Without being physically attacked or prevented from speaking.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
When a corporate has a monopoly on a dissemination of information, it is censorship. MLP does not have a monopoly on forums or even Les Pauls for that matter.
Google is not a natural monopoly, and those areas where it is dominant have nothing at all to do with the utility model of a marketplace. It's only if companies are non-contestable that we need to do anything about them. If it is possible for people to contest then we simply do not have a problem with the continued market dominance. There are no laws against monopolies, but there are laws against trusts.

Yes, I believe free speech is being 'affected'.
Then you should rethink what free speech really means. A private company has rights over their product.... or challenge it in court.

What is irrational about facts?
You are trying to infer 'facts' about the future, which hasn't happened yet. That is irrational. Facts exist in the present and past, not the future.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
35,884
Reaction score
70,186
They actually do have the right to say it. Without being physically attacked or prevented from speaking.

Yes they do. Without being physically attacked or prevented from speaking.
Go in someone's house and talk trash about their mother, and see how much preventing they do. The gov't won't (1st amendment) but they would sure try.
As far as "this side" or "that side", when one is most visibly being represented by KKK and neo-nazis, I will always cheer for the other guy. The other guy hasn't committed deliberate vehicular homicide yet (just for starters).
I already know which side has a long and well documented history of violence - and incitement to violence. I already know which side would like to bring that back.
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,664
Reaction score
20,849
Google is not a natural monopoly, and those areas where it is dominant have nothing at all to do with the utility model of a marketplace.
Youtube is the monopoly. They also control search engines, email, and a huge market share of mobile devices in the marketplace. They used to go by the motto "Don't be evil", but have dropped it since they began censoring.

http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/



Then you should rethink what free speech really means. A private company has rights over their product.... or challenge it in court.
I have no reason to rethink it. It has been defined already.


You are trying to infer 'facts' about the future, which hasn't happened yet. That is irrational. Facts exist in the present and past, not the future.
I am referring to current facts. Critical thinking leads to probable future outcomes, but they have not happened.
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,664
Reaction score
20,849
Go in someone's house and talk trash about their mother, and see how much preventing they do.
That is private property. I would defend my property as well.

I already know which side has a long and well documented history of violence - and incitement to violence. I already know which side would like to bring that back.
Antifa is just as bad. I defend neither side. I do respect their right, along with the previously mentioned, to spew whatever stupidity that they see fit. I agree with none of it, so I will not listen to them. In the interests of our ability to post here. I will refrain from further discussion. I have respect for you both, SG and Geo and there are no hard feelings here.

Have a great day!
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
Youtube is the monopoly. They also control search engines, email, and a huge market share of mobile devices in the marketplace. They used to go by the motto "Don't be evil", but have dropped it since they began censoring.
Not even YouTube....

Definition of 'Monopoly'

Definition: A market structure characterized by a single seller, selling a unique product in the market. In a monopoly market, the seller faces no competition, as he is the sole seller of goods with no close substitute.

I have no reason to rethink it. It has been defined already.
Where in the definition of Free Speech does it state that a private company doesn't have rights over their product?


I am referring to current facts. Critical thinking leads to probable future outcomes, but they have not happened.
Current facts do not extrapolate to totalitarianism. You are projecting.... which is why the slippery slope argument is a classic logical fallacy. You really aren't using critical thinking, although I think you believe you are.
 

LtDave32

Desert Star Guitars
Super Mod
Silver Supporting Member
Gold Supporting Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
48,139
Reaction score
160,935
Another argument vanquished by moderator.

:rofl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads



Top