Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Are large internet content companies censoring political viewpoints?

67 replies to this topic
E.A.B.
  • E.A.B.

    Group: Leone Mafia Family

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005

#61

Posted 29 October 2016 - 04:18 PM

 

Yeah, I'm sure if we outright ban certain forms of speech the controversial nature of said speech won't lead to people using it even more just to f*ck with you. I mean I certainly don't do that. It's not like stating curse words are ''bad words'' leads to young people using them even more than if they were just treated as any other word in a language.
 
I'm saying that when you say you aren't for censorship before saying you are, it has the same ridiculous effect as the ''I'm not racist, but...'' line of thought. The best way to fight off ideas you believe are bad are by having them out in the open and up for discussion rather than leaving them behind the shelves in the library for a kid to find and wonder why he never heard of this before (meaning it wasn't in the public square to be discredited)

I'm not against it because Youtube, FB, etc don't have to give anyone a platform. They have just as much right to say "no, this sh*t is stupid, we don't want it on our site". I even say that when it comes to controversial viewpoints I'd agree with. These are not examples of some "left-wing" (lol) conspiracy to keep opposing views hidden.

And here's the thing, not everyone wants to have a debate with an extreme ignoramus about his viewpoints. And, said ignoramus is always free to create his own platform for his ideas, and to invite anyone kind enough to actually entertain him to a debate. But no one else is obligated to provide that platform for him, nor are they obligated to listen to what he has to say.

This is the problem in society, people think their free speech rights are being threatened, when in reality, they're the ones questioning the rights of others to tell them to take their sh*t somewhere else.

 

 

I don't dispute any of that and said as much plenty of times; you're missing the point m8.

 

 

Even by American standards, where "leftist" means "centre-right" to any other observer, I don't think Obama is particularly left wing in the context of Democrat presidents. In some areas, such as foreign policy, he's clearly to the right of Bill Clinton. And Hillary lies to the right of both of them in most policy areas.

The rising popularity of Sanders is a fair point but I don't think it's fair to call him a "leftist". He may identify as a democratic socialist but he's really a social democrat which puts him firmly in the "centrist" camp. Definately further left than pretty much any mainstream figure in American politics, but not actually left in the grand scheme of things.

 

When speaking of Obama I was talking about his ideology, not necessarily the manner in which he governs. Government wise he's left on social issues in the American context, as most Democrats tend to be, and it shows itself in his jumping the gun on judgement when a Black kid assaulting a police officer is killed. Which stems from his upbringing by his mother who had a leftist bent. IIRC didn't she meet Obama's father in a Russian Language class? lol.

 

Governing wise he's Bush Lite. I honestly don't know why people expect the President to be the Monarch. Even if Obama was a wild leftist Communist (he may have hung out with Communists but I don't think he's that far out), he can't enact his wild leftist dream anyway. So when it comes to governing all American leaders will generally keep the trend going because they aren't monarchs. Whether they're Bernie or Trump.

 

 

Venezuela was in economic freefall long before the death of Chávez, but that was largely due to nepotism, cronyism and financial mismanagement. The nation simply exchanged capitalists for corrupt politicians as the economic elites.

 

That's the natural outcome of large state government run economies. I'm being 100% serious and not throwing a ''haha f*cker gotcha ZING'' statement here when I say I legitimately wonder if there has ever been a large state government run economy that WASN'T corrupt in the 20th and 21st century.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#62

Posted 29 October 2016 - 06:45 PM

Government wise he's left on social issues in the American context, as most Democrats tend to be

Democrats typically being on the left of the American political spectrum is kind of self-evident. But American political context is totally unlike that of any other developed state, and doesn't actually contain "leftists". Asserting anyone in American mainstream politics is a "leftist" or has leftist views is basically wrong. I think that people on the right if the US spectrum who use terms like this as slurs should probably develop some new language to express this because calling mainstream Democrats "leftist" is equally as silly as calling anyone of social democrat persuasion "commies". Both are equally incorrect.

it shows itself in his jumping the gun on judgement when a Black kid assaulting a police officer is killed.

I think pretty much every sane, objective observer looks at the quantity and severity of completely unnecessary aggression directed at the economically and socially disenfranchised in the United States and wants to speak out against it. Most US police-involved shootings which are subject to public scrutiny would be illegal acts pretty much anywhere else in the developed world even after the "full facts" come to light.

IIRC didn't she meet Obama's father in a Russian Language class?

Not at all sure what you're trying to imply here? The main studiers of the Russian language in the late 1950s and early 1960s United States were people involved in foreign intelligence and espionage work.
 

I'm being 100% serious and not throwing a ''haha f*cker gotcha ZING'' statement here when I say I legitimately wonder if there has ever been a large state government run economy that WASN'T corrupt in the 20th and 21st century.

Pick basically any Ordoliberal/Social Market Economy/Nordic Capitalist state. All have extensive public and worker ownership of the economic machinery and most have standards of living, democratic values and freedom from corruption of all kinds so great as to make America look like a third world power.

E.A.B.
  • E.A.B.

    Group: Leone Mafia Family

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005

#63

Posted 08 November 2016 - 04:07 AM

 

Government wise he's left on social issues in the American context, as most Democrats tend to be

 

Democrats typically being on the left of the American political spectrum is kind of self-evident. But American political context is totally unlike that of any other developed state, and doesn't actually contain "leftists". Asserting anyone in American mainstream politics is a "leftist" or has leftist views is basically wrong. I think that people on the right if the US spectrum who use terms like this as slurs should probably develop some new language to express this because calling mainstream Democrats "leftist" is equally as silly as calling anyone of social democrat persuasion "commies". Both are equally incorrect.

 

That's why I said in the American context. America leans further right than Europe; to say there is no left in America is ridiculous. They might not be leftist to you; they are to us. Your Conservative party in the UK is still for single payer healthcare; but it's still right leaning in the context of the UK. I get that our leftists aren't to your liking but they're still leftists in the American space.

 

 

it shows itself in his jumping the gun on judgement when a Black kid assaulting a police officer is killed.

 

I think pretty much every sane, objective observer looks at the quantity and severity of completely unnecessary aggression directed at the economically and socially disenfranchised in the United States and wants to speak out against it. Most US police-involved shootings which are subject to public scrutiny would be illegal acts pretty much anywhere else in the developed world even after the "full facts" come to light.

 

That's a strawman; I wasn't talking whatsoever about the merits of the BLM movement which was fabricated on a lie. I was talking about a lawyer's consistent need to give out judgement on on-going cases and him having it blow up in his face. My point is that he's a leftist on social issues because his preconceived notions are that America has had a racist past and continues to perpetuate that racism through institutions so whenever a case like this comes up it just confirms his bias and he speaks out on them because, ''hey look I was right''.

 

I don't remember him speaking out about Kait Stenley or whatever the hell that girls name, or that white guy who got murdered by two cops who's name I don't recall because why give media attention to something as unimportant as police brutality. The merits of BLM has nothing to do with his confirmation bias and what makes him a leftist; your opinion on American racism has nothing to do with my point. The only thing you said is he's sane and an objective observer which I guess goes to show your own bias.

 

As for the rest of the ''developed world'' I still don't see the relevance.

 

 

IIRC didn't she meet Obama's father in a Russian Language class?

 

Not at all sure what you're trying to imply here? The main studiers of the Russian language in the late 1950s and early 1960s United States were people involved in foreign intelligence and espionage work.
 

 

She was neither involved in foreign intelligence nor espionage work. Maybe her and Obama's father never discussed political matters whatsoever and, I don't know, the topic never came up. Or maybe they vehemently disagreed politically. But his father was also a leftist. The point I'm asserting is that often parents own persuasions grow on their own children to varying degrees. I grew up in a Roman Catholic Family of immigrants from a Central American war-torn nation; their political views rubbed off on me to varying degrees. This is not always the case, but I'm sure more often than not various political positions of the father and mother rub off on the youth, which they either rebel against later in life or accept.

 

 

I'm being 100% serious and not throwing a ''haha f*cker gotcha ZING'' statement here when I say I legitimately wonder if there has ever been a large state government run economy that WASN'T corrupt in the 20th and 21st century.

 


Pick basically any Ordoliberal/Social Market Economy/Nordic Capitalist state. All have extensive public and worker ownership of the economic machinery and most have standards of living, democratic values and freedom from corruption of all kinds so great as to make America look like a third world power.

 

They also have youth unemployment so massive that it makes Zimbabwe's youth look world class. You can't constrict a job market and expect the least advantaged with no work experience to enter it easily. Correct me if I'm wrong but dont waiters in France have a union? You're basically waiting in line for the guy in front of you to retire.

 

The Employer's Union in Sweden are even arguing for a lower minimum wage which goes to show you how fantastic an idea it is to have wage floors. You're right about one thing, when Sweden has a lot of young people on public assistance for long periods of time it definitely makes it look like a first rate European Social Democracy.

 

lol sorry; couldn't resist. But yeah I know that excruciatingly homogenous societies that are the size of one street in NYC can have socialist governments and they can function fairly well, but as with anything else there are trade-offs. One of them being the housing shortages in Sweden....or was it Norway. I don't know the level of corruption in Nordic nations and was mostly thinking of every other nation on the planet (I know that sounds like me being a dick; it's not), but good point

 

we're talking about Europe I dont know why I didn't think of them

  • MikrotikEl likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#64

Posted 08 November 2016 - 04:19 AM

"America is too big to have good policy"

 

So we should abolish America? 

  • mr quick and Michael like this

E.A.B.
  • E.A.B.

    Group: Leone Mafia Family

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005

#65

Posted 08 November 2016 - 04:44 AM

"America is too big to have good policy"

 

So we should abolish America? 

 

That's what I've been saying all this time!

 

On a serious note: yeah, bureaucracy is more efficient in smaller doses, but the larger the entity the more waste there is. This isn't exclusive to governments, it happens in companies that get larger and larger. It's why I can get paid to sit on a table all day but when I was in a small business I couldn't sit still for more than a minute before being told to get back to work. The larger the entity the more those small holes become gaping....gaping....

 

gaping something


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#66

Posted 08 November 2016 - 05:36 AM

Well I don't get it. Where is your objection to abolishing America? 

  • mr quick and Michael like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#67

Posted 08 November 2016 - 09:12 AM

to say there is no left in America is ridiculous.

Objectively speaking there isn't, though. I don't take issue with the fact that one major party in the US are portrayed as to the left of the other (I mean it is factually accurate), I take issue with the assertion that either is actually leftist. From the perspective of an external observer, all this talk of "leftists" and "socialists" in US politics is nonsensical because there aren't actually either. If you want to redraw the political spectrum to suit your national foibles, you can do so without confusingly co-opting everyone else's terminologies.

This isn't a slight on you, it's a more general complaint about the need for one nation to arbitrarily rewrite the political spectrum. I don't take issue with the characterisation of one party as being "left-leaning" in the context of a particular country's political system but claiming that a right-wing party is "leftist" because their main opposition are even further right is simply wrong.

My point is that he's a leftist on social issues because his preconceived notions are that America has had a racist past

Wait, this appears to suggest that you don't believe the United States, a nation which enforced racial segregation until only a couple of generations ago, has a racist past? Moreover the suggestion that the United States in the here and now isn't fundamentally afflicted by institutionalised racism is also perplexing. We're talking about a nation with easily the most active white nationalist movement in the developed world; where the leaders of white supremacist organisation openly appear on national TV to back presidential candidates.

I struggle to understand how someone could deny the systemic racism present in US society. Even so, you've somewhat missed the point; highlighting apparent differences in conduct when tackling suspects of different ethnicities is not "leftist". Fundamentally, imprinting one's own subjective interpretation of race politics onto society- which most of us do at one point or another- isn't leftist. It's a non sequitur.

I don't remember him speaking out

Not even close to a direct comparison. If the main point is to draw attention to disproportionate violence being directed at a particular ethnic group, how does commenting on other individual cases of police brutality serve that cause? Everyone know the police system in the US is fundamentally violent, the point is where the this violence is disproportionately directed. It's much harder to tackle institutional failures in an organisation that's unnecessarily violent Inna political environment such as that in the US, much easier to bring about popular support for change if those institutions can be cast as discriminatory.

The only thing you said is he's sane and an objective observer

Actually I didn't say that, you simply assumed it. He does not need to be a sane and objective observer to be right.
 

As for the rest of the ''developed world'' I still don't see the relevance.

That comparison with other nations highlights these problems much better than navel-gazing ever will?

Maybe her and Obama's father never discussed political matters whatsoever

You still seem to be pussy-footing around this. Why don't you ditch the innuendo?

They also have youth unemployment so massive that it makes Zimbabwe's youth look world class.

Youth unemployment in the US is 10.3% and climbing. Youth unemployment in Norway is 10.9% and falling. Youth unemployment in Iceland is 7.2% and remaining steady. Youth unemployment in Germany is 6.8% and falling. Denmark, Finland and Sweden do exhibit higher levels of youth unemployment, but there are other factors at play which make direct comparison difficult. The proportion of 18-21 year olds in higher education, for instance. The differences in recording mechanism from nation to nation, too. As is so often the case, it's much more complex than simply comparing baseline figures.
  • Triple Vacuum Seal likes this

Niobium
  • Niobium

    han solo died

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#68

Posted 10 November 2016 - 04:02 PM

making a video age-restricted is not censorship. you can still watch it. censorship would be if the PragerU videos get taken down

besides, why should i care about these morons?
  • Tchuck, mr quick and ClaudeSpeed1911 like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users