+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 83
Latest: Hazelrabbit2006
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112643
Total Topics: 4372
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Poll

Spam VS Treet

Spam
14 (38.9%)
Treet
14 (38.9%)
Other
8 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 32

Author Topic: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle  (Read 61488 times)

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6664
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9400 on: August 09, 2018, 04:22:24 pm »
Page one of the authoritarian's playbook: Establish vague laws, rules, and guidelines that can be enforced subjectively.
I'm sure it's fine when industries like insurance or telecom use that vague language to rip people off, but far be it from the tech companies to ban this piece of shit...

It's well within their rights to do so, but it's still stupid and evil. When you cut out a man's tongue, you do not make him a liar-- you only prove that you fear what he had to say.
I feel like that analogy fails here though; Alex Jones is still perfectly free to say whatever he wants on his own website or whatever, these companies have just decided that he can't promote his shit on their platforms, which I don't really see a problem with. This might bother me if it was Comcast blocking people from accessing Infowars.com, but to me this is just Apple, Spotify, etc. saying that people will have to go elsewhere to access Jones' content, not prohibiting them from finding it altogether.

I'd have thought you'd be more worried about this, Mr. I-Hate-Monopolies. YouTube is indisputably number one in terms of video streaming services. It's definitely not as bad as Comcast censoring speakers, but Facebook, YouTube, and Google are all powerful companies that have the capability to censor large swaths the political spectrum. Again, they have the right to do so, and they have no social responsibility to give anyone a platform, but if I were running these companies I wouldn't be censoring anyone aside from bots and spammers.
While monopolies indubitably drag down the economy and are detrimental to society more broadly, this really has nothing to do with the consolidation of power. Sure, I'd likely support breaking up Google in the future, but YouTube banning a channel is hardly a huge overstep; it's like Wal-Mart choosing not to carry a product. Yes, it hurts, but it isn't a death knell for the product. Rather, I just see it as the company choosing not to associate which isn't particularly similar to a ban that would actually prevent customers from seeking out that brand/product. And the censorship would bother me more if Jones wasn't using these platforms to promote blatant falsehoods and (at least according to the company, I personally haven't seen this) bigoted content.

Question: Would you support removing the Young Turks from YouTube?
No, but at least from what I've seen they're hardly comparable to Alex Jones. Just from seeing their vids pop up on Facebook, they just seem to talk about politics from a (very) liberal point of view, not anything really malicious. You'll notice I'm not advocating banning Hannity or Tomi Lahren or whoever; even if they do say racist things sometimes, it's a far cry between them and the real crazies like Jones.

Hannity, Lahren, and Cenk Uygur all use their platforms to spew falsehoods too, though. In fact, I'd say they're all far more dangerous than Jones, because they coat their lies in a thin veneer of superficial fact. They also have the advantage of plausibility. Which of these sounds more believable to you?

A) Barack Obama, who lived abroad in a Muslim-majority country for much of his youth, is a secret Muslim.
B) Companies like Monsanto are doctoring their research to show that GMOs are harmless, all while secretly poisoning the world.
C) Hillary Clinton is an interdimensional globalist Jew reptilian puppet demon who molests Christian babies in order to summon Moloch to the basement of a pizza parlor in New York City.

Now, all of these are false statements, but I'd argue that C-- while easily the most heinous-- is also the most harmless. No thinking person can possibly believe that for a second. The easiest to believe is B (though maybe not for Dylan, who likely believes A unironically). But B is still a lie. All three statements are equally true, in that they're not true at all-- but B and A are based off of enough fact (Monsanto isn't a very honest company and Obama lived in Indonesia) to be plausible.

A communist will believe B because it confirms his bias. A racist will believe A because it confirms his bias. They're fairly easy lies to accept once you've done a little bit of mental gymnastics. C, however, is so far outside the realm of possibility that I don't regard it as a threat at all.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4691
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9401 on: August 09, 2018, 07:46:45 pm »
Page one of the authoritarian's playbook: Establish vague laws, rules, and guidelines that can be enforced subjectively.
I'm sure it's fine when industries like insurance or telecom use that vague language to rip people off, but far be it from the tech companies to ban this piece of shit...

It's well within their rights to do so, but it's still stupid and evil. When you cut out a man's tongue, you do not make him a liar-- you only prove that you fear what he had to say.
I feel like that analogy fails here though; Alex Jones is still perfectly free to say whatever he wants on his own website or whatever, these companies have just decided that he can't promote his shit on their platforms, which I don't really see a problem with. This might bother me if it was Comcast blocking people from accessing Infowars.com, but to me this is just Apple, Spotify, etc. saying that people will have to go elsewhere to access Jones' content, not prohibiting them from finding it altogether.

I'd have thought you'd be more worried about this, Mr. I-Hate-Monopolies. YouTube is indisputably number one in terms of video streaming services. It's definitely not as bad as Comcast censoring speakers, but Facebook, YouTube, and Google are all powerful companies that have the capability to censor large swaths the political spectrum. Again, they have the right to do so, and they have no social responsibility to give anyone a platform, but if I were running these companies I wouldn't be censoring anyone aside from bots and spammers.
While monopolies indubitably drag down the economy and are detrimental to society more broadly, this really has nothing to do with the consolidation of power. Sure, I'd likely support breaking up Google in the future, but YouTube banning a channel is hardly a huge overstep; it's like Wal-Mart choosing not to carry a product. Yes, it hurts, but it isn't a death knell for the product. Rather, I just see it as the company choosing not to associate which isn't particularly similar to a ban that would actually prevent customers from seeking out that brand/product. And the censorship would bother me more if Jones wasn't using these platforms to promote blatant falsehoods and (at least according to the company, I personally haven't seen this) bigoted content.

Question: Would you support removing the Young Turks from YouTube?
No, but at least from what I've seen they're hardly comparable to Alex Jones. Just from seeing their vids pop up on Facebook, they just seem to talk about politics from a (very) liberal point of view, not anything really malicious. You'll notice I'm not advocating banning Hannity or Tomi Lahren or whoever; even if they do say racist things sometimes, it's a far cry between them and the real crazies like Jones.

Hannity, Lahren, and Cenk Uygur all use their platforms to spew falsehoods too, though. In fact, I'd say they're all far more dangerous than Jones, because they coat their lies in a thin veneer of superficial fact. They also have the advantage of plausibility. Which of these sounds more believable to you?

A) Barack Obama, who lived abroad in a Muslim-majority country for much of his youth, is a secret Muslim.
B) Companies like Monsanto are doctoring their research to show that GMOs are harmless, all while secretly poisoning the world.
C) Hillary Clinton is an interdimensional globalist Jew reptilian puppet demon who molests Christian babies in order to summon Moloch to the basement of a pizza parlor in New York City.

Now, all of these are false statements, but I'd argue that C-- while easily the most heinous-- is also the most harmless. No thinking person can possibly believe that for a second. The easiest to believe is B (though maybe not for Dylan, who likely believes A unironically). But B is still a lie. All three statements are equally true, in that they're not true at all-- but B and A are based off of enough fact (Monsanto isn't a very honest company and Obama lived in Indonesia) to be plausible.

A communist will believe B because it confirms his bias. A racist will believe A because it confirms his bias. They're fairly easy lies to accept once you've done a little bit of mental gymnastics. C, however, is so far outside the realm of possibility that I don't regard it as a threat at all.
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6664
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9402 on: August 09, 2018, 08:58:55 pm »
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

I find your justification in the first paragraph to be flimsy. It can be argued that any conspiracy theorist believes that his claims are true. This is the central problem with "hate speech" laws-- if you're going to set a boundary like that, you need to make sure it's extremely well-defined. Since nobody can define "hate," and since you can't define a "reasonable claim," it's just another vague guideline that will obviously be enforced subjectively. You also say that only C is "blatantly false enough to be banworthy," but since when is being wrong a crime? Where's the barrier for "blatant falsehood?" Those three examples I used exist on a spectrum of wrongness; yeah, they're all incorrect, but to varying degrees. Where do we set that arbitrary limit?

As for the spread of fake news, I still think it's nothing more than a stimulus-response reaction to the left's rhetoric. America has decided that incorrect facts are more worth listening to than people's feelings. Every time a Democrat says "Think of the children," "You're a sociopath who doesn't care about other people," "You're a privileged white male," or any other inane emotion-based garbage, it drives more people to spread and believe fake news out of pure spite. If we were having a rational, centrist debate between the moderate left and the moderate right, this would absolutely not be a problem. However, retards have hijacked our political discourse, and the result is that nobody knows what to believe.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4691
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9403 on: August 11, 2018, 12:10:40 am »
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

I find your justification in the first paragraph to be flimsy. It can be argued that any conspiracy theorist believes that his claims are true. This is the central problem with "hate speech" laws-- if you're going to set a boundary like that, you need to make sure it's extremely well-defined. Since nobody can define "hate," and since you can't define a "reasonable claim," it's just another vague guideline that will obviously be enforced subjectively. You also say that only C is "blatantly false enough to be banworthy," but since when is being wrong a crime? Where's the barrier for "blatant falsehood?" Those three examples I used exist on a spectrum of wrongness; yeah, they're all incorrect, but to varying degrees. Where do we set that arbitrary limit?

As for the spread of fake news, I still think it's nothing more than a stimulus-response reaction to the left's rhetoric. America has decided that incorrect facts are more worth listening to than people's feelings. Every time a Democrat says "Think of the children," "You're a sociopath who doesn't care about other people," "You're a privileged white male," or any other inane emotion-based garbage, it drives more people to spread and believe fake news out of pure spite. If we were having a rational, centrist debate between the moderate left and the moderate right, this would absolutely not be a problem. However, retards have hijacked our political discourse, and the result is that nobody knows what to believe.
I mean, yeah, it's really hard to define anything along this spectrum for certain. That's why you aim for the easiest, most blatant targets like Jones. I have no idea where the "arbitrary limit" you speak of should be set, but I am absolutely positive that Jones is not within the boundaries of said limit.

And while I agree with you that emotion based politics are unhelpful and even harmful (it's the worst, least convincing argument for gun control in particular), I don't think it has anything to do with Trump and many of his supporters decrying basic facts as misinformation spread by the mainstream media. Honestly, I just don't know how we got to the point where the president claims that journalists are the enemy and slanders reputable outlets like the New York Times as spreading fake news and is subsequently lauded for those actions by his base. Even worse, members of his own party seem to have picked up some of the practices, although mostly just the part where they claim anything that disagrees with them is fake.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6664
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9404 on: August 11, 2018, 02:51:30 am »
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

I find your justification in the first paragraph to be flimsy. It can be argued that any conspiracy theorist believes that his claims are true. This is the central problem with "hate speech" laws-- if you're going to set a boundary like that, you need to make sure it's extremely well-defined. Since nobody can define "hate," and since you can't define a "reasonable claim," it's just another vague guideline that will obviously be enforced subjectively. You also say that only C is "blatantly false enough to be banworthy," but since when is being wrong a crime? Where's the barrier for "blatant falsehood?" Those three examples I used exist on a spectrum of wrongness; yeah, they're all incorrect, but to varying degrees. Where do we set that arbitrary limit?

As for the spread of fake news, I still think it's nothing more than a stimulus-response reaction to the left's rhetoric. America has decided that incorrect facts are more worth listening to than people's feelings. Every time a Democrat says "Think of the children," "You're a sociopath who doesn't care about other people," "You're a privileged white male," or any other inane emotion-based garbage, it drives more people to spread and believe fake news out of pure spite. If we were having a rational, centrist debate between the moderate left and the moderate right, this would absolutely not be a problem. However, retards have hijacked our political discourse, and the result is that nobody knows what to believe.
I mean, yeah, it's really hard to define anything along this spectrum for certain. That's why you aim for the easiest, most blatant targets like Jones. I have no idea where the "arbitrary limit" you speak of should be set, but I am absolutely positive that Jones is not within the boundaries of said limit.

And while I agree with you that emotion based politics are unhelpful and even harmful (it's the worst, least convincing argument for gun control in particular), I don't think it has anything to do with Trump and many of his supporters decrying basic facts as misinformation spread by the mainstream media. Honestly, I just don't know how we got to the point where the president claims that journalists are the enemy and slanders reputable outlets like the New York Times as spreading fake news and is subsequently lauded for those actions by his base. Even worse, members of his own party seem to have picked up some of the practices, although mostly just the part where they claim anything that disagrees with them is fake.

When I think of other easy targets, I think of the people on the furthest ends of this spectrum. Ban someone on one side, and you should ban their equivalent on the other.



Ban InfoWars, and you should ban Occupy Democrats. I'm not exaggerating at all here; they're both mechanisms for distributing misinformation to idiots. Morally and factually, they are equals. But which side has gotten more grief in terms of their social media presence? There are a lot of people on the right who I respect (but disagree with on a number of issues)-- Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson, etc-- and I'd say they're disproportionately attacked by the left. These are reasonable people who I don't consider any more radical than Robert Reich or Noam Chompsky. How long until the thought police decide that they don't deserve a platform either? It's very clear that far-left people like Ocasio-Cortez and Jeremy Corbyn are given a pass, while the middle-right people on that scale are treated like varying shades of Alex Jones.

As for the New York Times, again, I respect it as a publication, but it's obviously biased. The same goes for PBS. And then you have CNN, which does bad reporting AND is heavily biased, and which deserves to be lumped in with FOX as an easily-dismissed news source. My biggest problem with the Times is that it won't admit its bias, and continues to present itself as an impartial outlet, which simply isn't true. The Sarah Jeong thing put that premise to bed for good.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7141
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9405 on: August 13, 2018, 06:40:50 pm »
Got to ride in and drive a speedboat for a couple hours today. The lake was very placid for the first hour and we had the lake practically to ourselves.

 

+- Hot Threads

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Crohn's Boy
Today at 08:09:06 am

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Charles Longboat Jr.
August 14, 2018, 01:24:01 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Charles Longboat Jr.
August 13, 2018, 06:40:50 pm

Funny Memes/Gifs... by Hazelrabbit2006
August 12, 2018, 09:48:12 am

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Charles Longboat Jr.
August 10, 2018, 05:55:57 pm

Peter Rabbit (2018) by Hazelrabbit2006
August 09, 2018, 06:38:30 am

The Official "Going to see..." Movie Thread by Hazelrabbit2006
August 09, 2018, 06:37:15 am

Recent purchases (part II) by Tut
August 06, 2018, 02:27:46 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Frankie
August 06, 2018, 01:46:44 pm

Will be visiting my brother in Moscow by Charles Longboat Jr.
August 02, 2018, 02:46:07 pm

Upcoming 2018 Releases You're Looking Forward To by Crohn's Boy
August 01, 2018, 12:24:08 am

The Official Album Listening Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
July 31, 2018, 05:14:14 pm

The 2018 US Midterms and Goober-natorial Elections Thread by Tut
July 30, 2018, 05:59:00 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Robert Neville
July 30, 2018, 05:07:24 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
July 29, 2018, 08:47:19 pm