+- +-

+- You

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

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 85
Latest: Kyser91
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112727
Total Topics: 4373
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Watched The Graduate a few days ago. Hard to enjoy fully due to the moments that had me cringing harder than anything I've seen since Scott's Tots, but there's some great stuff in there for sure. Definitely picks up in the second half.
92
General Discussion / Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Last post by Kale Pasta 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.
93
Song of the Sea is a massive step up from The Secret of Kells on a visual and storytelling level. I think Tomm Moore is the unofficial heir to Hayao Miyazaki.

Our resident felon's return also reminded me that I watched Watership Down, which I was a bit disappointed with. I was invested overall though most of the characters are a bit dry and I think the film would have benefited more from going deeper with the unforgiving nature aspect (and excising the comic relief seagull).
94
General Discussion / Re: THE SCHOOL THREAD!
« Last post by Charles Longboat Jr. on August 10, 2018, 05:55:57 pm »
Got dealt a pretty good hand for my senior year schedule. I have teachers I enjoy or have heard good tings about and an AP slate that probably won't kill me.
95
To boost ratings and tighten the runtime, the Oscars are now adding a “Best Popular Film” category and presenting the awards people don’t care about during commercial breaks. No word on whether they’ll excise their “meeting the peasants” moments, their montages outside of the In Memorium segment, or at least one Trump joke.
This is getting a lot of shit for obvious reasons but I don't really think it's such a bad idea.
I just feel that it condescends the films getting nominated while also showing an acquiescence toward the mob. It's not entirely impossible for popular movies to get nominated or even win major Oscars nowadays (look at Get Out and Dunkirk), so this comes across as a free handout for films that either didn't deserve awards but had high box office or a fallback option if a popular film doesn't get anything noteworthy (like if Black Panther gets snubbed for Best Picture and Director, for example). Plus, this'll basically become the Disney/comic book category anyway.
96
General Discussion / Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Last post by Tut 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.
97
General Discussion / Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Last post by Kale Pasta 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.
98
General Discussion / Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Last post by Tut 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.
99
General Discussion / Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Last post by Kale Pasta on August 09, 2018, 03:54:52 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.
100
General Discussion / Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Last post by Tut on August 09, 2018, 12:23:40 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?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

+- Hot Threads

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Robert Neville
Today at 04:22:51 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Robert Neville
Today at 04:10:14 pm

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Kale Pasta
Today at 01:36:57 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm

The Trump Presidency Thread by Tut
September 07, 2018, 05:45:53 pm

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Tut
September 07, 2018, 04:43:28 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Robert Neville
September 06, 2018, 03:15:16 pm

Favorite videogame cutscenes by Robert Neville
September 06, 2018, 02:55:25 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 04, 2018, 04:10:19 pm

The US Supreme Court Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 04, 2018, 03:02:07 pm

Top 10 Horror Films... by Crohn's Boy
September 04, 2018, 09:56:00 am

Best All-Time Disney Theatrical Animated Films... by Kale Pasta
August 30, 2018, 08:56:21 am

Recent purchases (part II) by Hazelrabbit2006
August 25, 2018, 09:29:10 am